Spot the trend: $100,000 USD prize to show climate & temperature data is not random

Ross McKittrick writes via email:

A UK-based math buff and former investment analyst named Douglas Keenan has posted an intriguing comment on the internet. He takes the view that global temperature series are dominated by randomness and contain no trend, and that existing analyses supposedly showing a significant trend are wrong. He states:

There have been many claims of observational evidence for global-warming alarmism. I have argued that all such claims rely on invalid statistical analyses. Some people, though, have asserted that the analyses are valid. Those people assert, in particular, that they can determine, via statistical analysis, whether global temperatures are increasing more that would be reasonably expected by random natural variation. Those people do not present any counter to my argument, but they make their assertions anyway.

In response to that, I am sponsoring a contest: the prize is $100 000. In essence, the prize will be awarded to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.

He would like such people to substantiate their claim to be able to identify trends. To this end he has posted a file of 1000 time series, some with trends and some without. And…

A prize of $100 000 (one hundred thousand U.S. dollars) will be awarded to the first person, or group of people, who correctly identifies at least 900 series: i.e. which series were generated by a trendless process and which were generated by a trending process.

You have until 30 November 2016 or until someone wins the contest. Each entry costs $10; this is being done to inhibit non-serious entries.
Good luck!

Details here: http://www.informath.org/Contest1000.htm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/18/spot-the-trend-10000-usd-prizes-to-show-climate-temperature-data-is-not-random/

The_observer said:

Spot the trend: $100,000 USD prize to show climate & temperature data is not random

Ross McKittrick writes via email:

A UK-based math buff and former investment analyst named Douglas Keenan has posted an intriguing comment on the internet. He takes the view that global temperature series are dominated by randomness and contain no trend, and that existing analyses supposedly showing a significant trend are wrong. He states:

There have been many claims of observational evidence for global-warming alarmism. I have argued that all such claims rely on invalid statistical analyses. Some people, though, have asserted that the analyses are valid. Those people assert, in particular, that they can determine, via statistical analysis, whether global temperatures are increasing more that would be reasonably expected by random natural variation. Those people do not present any counter to my argument, but they make their assertions anyway.

In response to that, I am sponsoring a contest: the prize is $100 000. In essence, the prize will be awarded to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.

He would like such people to substantiate their claim to be able to identify trends. To this end he has posted a file of 1000 time series, some with trends and some without. And…

A prize of $100 000 (one hundred thousand U.S. dollars) will be awarded to the first person, or group of people, who correctly identifies at least 900 series: i.e. which series were generated by a trendless process and which were generated by a trending process.

You have until 30 November 2016 or until someone wins the contest. Each entry costs $10; this is being done to inhibit non-serious entries.
Good luck!

Details here: http://www.informath.org/Contest1000.htm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/18/spot-the-trend-10000-usd-prizes-to-show-climate-temperature-data-is-not-random/

Ross McKitrick is a member of the academic advisory boards of the Global Warming Policy Foundation,

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge “extremely damaging and harmful policies” envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. The Independent describes the foundation as “the UK’s most prominent source of climate-change denial”. Since 2014, when the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had breached rules on impartiality, a non-charitable organisation called the “Global Warming Policy Forum” or “GWPF” was spun out as a wholly owned subsidiary, to do lobbying that a charity could not.

Temperature graph
When the GWPF’s website was launched in November 2009, a graph used in the logo graphic on each page of the website of ‘21st Century global mean temperatures’ showed a slow decline over the selected period from 2001 to 2008. Hannah Devlin of The Times found an error for 2003 and noted that if the period from 2000 to 2009 had been chosen, then a rise in temperature would have been shown rather than a fall. Bob Ward said that the graph was contrary to the true measurements, and that by leaving out the temperature trend during the 20th century, the graph obscured the fact that 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred this century. The GWPF blamed a “small error by our graphic designer” for the mistake which would now be changed, but said that starting the graph earlier would be equally arbitrary.

The Guardian quoted Bob Ward as saying “some of those names are straight from the Who’s Who of current climate change sceptics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#Temperature_graph

In light of the above and other similar organisations of which McKitrick is a member, I don’t think anyone will be picking up the money. They used to call these people snake-oil salesmen. However the Observer is easily fooled by them.

in light of the fact that there is only one place in the entire universe that we can live at this moment we should take care of this lifeboat we are in

its very silly using coal to make power when it can be used for other more useful materials

fertilisers

gas

diesel

plastics

burning coal releases lots of radioactive isotopes into the environment 2ppm uranium

PermeateFree said:

In light of the above and other similar organisations of which McKitrick is a member, I don’t think anyone will be picking up the money. They used to call these people snake-oil salesmen. However the Observer is easily fooled by them.

you idiot pf!

Ross McKitrick has nothing to do with running the competition, Douglas Keenan is.

Now, if you want to take part to prove him wrong, & desist with the bullshit, go for your life.

http://www.informath.org/Contest1000.htm

There have been many claims of observational evidence for global-warming alarmism. I have argued that all such claims rely on invalid statistical analyses. Some people, though, have asserted that the analyses are valid. Those people assert, in particular, that they can determine, via statistical analysis, whether global temperatures are increasing more than would be reasonably expected by random natural variation. Those people do not present any counter to my argument, but they make their assertions anyway.

In response to that, I am sponsoring a contest: the prize is $100 000. In essence, the prize will be awared to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.

The file Series1000.txt contains 1000 time series. Each series has length 135 (about the same as that of the most commonly studied series of global temperatures). The series were generated via trendless statistical models fit for global temperatures. Some series then had a trend added to them. Each individual trend averaged 1°C/century—which is greater than the trend claimed for global temperatures. Some trends were positive; others were negative.

A prize of $100 000 (one hundred thousand U.S. dollars) will be awarded to the first person, or group of people, who correctly identifies at least 900 series: which series were generated by a trendless process and which were generated by a trending process.

Each entry in the contest must be accompanied by a payment of $10; this is being done to inhibit non-serious entries. The contest closes at the end of 30 November 2016.

The file Answers1000.txt identifies which series were generated by a trendless process and which by a trending process. The file is encrypted. The encryption key and method will be made available when someone submits a prize-winning answer or, if no prize-winning answers are submitted, when the contest closes.

_____________________

Related statement by Her Majesty’s Government

For a detailed discussion of the statistical mistakes that almost all climate scientists have been making, see my critique of the statistical analyses in the IPCC’s 2013 Assessment Report. The critique concluded that the statistical analyses are seriously incompetent, and further, that no one has yet drawn valid inferences, via statistics, from climatic time series.

My critique was submitted to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, by Lord Donoughue. Lord Donoughue also arranged for a meeting at the Department: with the Department’s Under Secretary of State and the Department’s Chief Scientific Adviser, among others. Twelve days after the meeting, on 21 January 2014, the Under Secretary stated the following in Parliament.

Her Majesty’s Government does not rely upon any specific statistical model for the statistical analysis of global temperature time series.

Global temperatures, along with many other aspects of the climate system, are analysed using physically-based mathematical models, rather than purely statistical models.

In plain English, the UK government stopped using or relying on statistical analysis of observational evidence for global warming; instead, the government started relying solely on computer simulations of the climate system. In short, the government effectively accepted the main conclusions of my critique.

Related analyses in statistical textbooks

Some textbooks on the statistical analysis of time series have indicated that the series of global temperatures seems to be trendless. Two such textbooks are Introductory Time Series with R, by Cowpertwait & Metcalfe, and Time Series Analysis and Its Applications, by Shumway & Stoffer (full references are below).

Cowpertwait & Metcalfe actually present analysis for a series of temperatures for the Southern Hemisphere. The analysis concludes that Southern Hemisphere temperatures are reasonably described as trendless and random. Shumway & Stoffer present analysis for the series of global temperatures (with some of the analysis set as an exercise for the student). The analysis indicates that global temperatures are reasonably described as trendless and random.

Cowpertwait P.S.P., Metcalfe A.V. (2009), Introductory Time Series with R (Springer).
Shumway R.H., Stoffer D.S. (2011), Time Series Analysis and Its Applications (Springer).
Douglas J. Keenan

pf

In essence, the prize will be awared to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.

go for it mate.

I don’t know anything about the data in this chart, I’m just posting it because I came across it, or a similar one, in an unrelated search and thought it took an interesting approach…

Ha ha… $10 to enter, with a chance to win $100,000.
Does it come with a chance to sell Amway products too?

Global warming threads are basically a shit fight between two extremes and unproductive

• Global warming threads are basically a shit fight between two extremes and unproductive

You’re wrong, you have no proof of that, even if you did it would probably be from somewhere with a vested interest in your stance…

To be charitable, it is quite possible that “The_observer” is so unskeptical that he doesn’t even realise that the statistical exercise described shows why virtually all the “evidence” put forward by the Unskeptical Climate Change Doubter Alarmists is valueless.

Whether we should be so charitable about the mathematician running the exercise is doubtful.

wookiemeister said:

in light of the fact that there is only one place in the entire universe that we can live at this moment we should take care of this lifeboat we are in

Careful wookie.

You’ll destroy your hard won reputation with sensible statements like that.

A rather amusing little article about Douglas Keenan:

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/08/06/personal-attacks-on-met-office-scientists/

i think we can have a balance and use coal and use carbon based fuels/ materials but they need to be managed

its true that these materials will make them more money per pound because they are value adding rather than providing a crude product with little value but the managers have taken control

the real problem is being created by the managers. managers are at heart very lazy, thinking and having a knowledge of the subject they are managing is often lacking

so instead of innovating they hold onto bad ideas and concepts until they are handed down to them from on high

as you move further up the chain the less knowledge the managers have on the subject – they are managers not knowledgeable on the subject beyond paperwork

the power authority has been devastated by these people – hence the waste and confusion and price rises and people starting to LEAVE the power network

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

In light of the above and other similar organisations of which McKitrick is a member, I don’t think anyone will be picking up the money. They used to call these people snake-oil salesmen. However the Observer is easily fooled by them.

you idiot pf!

Ross McKitrick has nothing to do with running the competition, Douglas Keenan is.

Now, if you want to take part to prove him wrong, & desist with the bullshit, go for your life.

It would seem Douglas Keenan is a raving loony, the links below will give some indication of how bad he is.

http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/tag/doug-keenan/

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2012/04/a-climate-skeptics-objection-to-ideology-politics-as-motives/

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/we-need-a-better-class-of-climate-skeptic/

If I were you Observer, in order to make a point, I would be looking to reputable scientists.

we should move over to base load being provide 100 renewable

energy in australia should be the cheapest in the world

with cheap energy we can export more and encourage new businesses to australia in search for cheap power in the same way companies country swap for cheap labour

we use this new found wealth to build water supplies to the dry areas

recycle water in all cities

manage feral pests eg eradicate the cane toad

furious said:

I don’t know anything about the data in this chart, I’m just posting it because I came across it, or a similar one, in an unrelated search and thought it took an interesting approach…

That’s an interesting presentation. I like it.

i’m confused

PF and observer

who is is a global warming skeptic and who isn’t?

ive tended to gloss over the debate

wookiemeister said:

i’m confused

PF and observer

who is is a global warming skeptic and who isn’t?

ive tended to gloss over the debate

Perhaps if you didn’t gloss over the debate, it might make more sense.

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

i’m confused

PF and observer

who is is a global warming skeptic and who isn’t?

ive tended to gloss over the debate

Perhaps if you didn’t gloss over the debate, it might make more sense.

its been too long and winding

are you a skeptic of global warming or not?

I find it strange that skeptics don’t seem to get the fact that even if global warming is a huge conspiracy we still need to look after the planet a lot better as money isn’t going to help you if the environment collapses.

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

i’m confused

PF and observer

who is is a global warming skeptic and who isn’t?

ive tended to gloss over the debate

Perhaps if you didn’t gloss over the debate, it might make more sense.

its been too long and winding

are you a skeptic of global warming or not?

If you don’t know that now, you spend far too long in your fantasy world.

Cymek said:

I find it strange that skeptics don’t seem to get the fact that even if global warming is a huge conspiracy we still need to look after the planet a lot better as money isn’t going to help you if the environment collapses.

one of the reasons i went to work in a powerstation was because if a “discussion” in the old science forum

by actually working in a coal fired powerstation, examining most corners of it, the financials the workings i came to the conclusion that : they are a waste of time and money and are a technology at the start of industrial revolution

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

Perhaps if you didn’t gloss over the debate, it might make more sense.

its been too long and winding

are you a skeptic of global warming or not?

If you don’t know that now, you spend far too long in your fantasy world.

don’t go down that path PF its a waste of time

any powerstation using a fuel to raise the temp of a fluid to generate electricity has inherent losses

a coal fired powerstation is horrendous

there are millions of moving parts all rusting

many of them are moving

many of them cant be maintained properly

the coal fired power generation technology in this country is old and should be phased out

if you look at the queensland treasury corporation you’ll see that stanwell power is nearly a billion dollars in the red (coal fired/ fossil fuels), in a word its – unsustainable

then there’s the dust – it gets every where, even the cleanest powerstation would have the coal dust and ash everywhere

on my first day out on the floor i realised that the air shouldn’t be breathed and i kept my mask on till the last day

i plugged in a drill and there was an explosion , coal dust had got onto the plug pins and socket creating a circuit

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

its been too long and winding

are you a skeptic of global warming or not?

If you don’t know that now, you spend far too long in your fantasy world.

don’t go down that path PF its a waste of time

The Observer is a pseudoscience devotee and I am a strong sceptic of that position.

regardless of the position, coal and burning lots of it incredibly inefficient to make power, lets draw a line above coal and using a fuel that doesn’t require the fuel source to be dug up and transported to the generator set

make power the cheapest thing on the planet to access and i bet many problems would evaporate

wookiemeister said:

if you look at the queensland treasury corporation you’ll see that stanwell power is nearly a billion dollars in the red (coal fired/ fossil fuels), in a word its – unsustainable

What the URL for that?

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

if you look at the queensland treasury corporation you’ll see that stanwell power is nearly a billion dollars in the red (coal fired/ fossil fuels), in a word its – unsustainable

What the URL for that?

https://www.qtc.qld.gov.au/qtc/public/web/aboutqtc/corporate-overview/annual-reports

make use of this site before it disappears

in the future all loans to government will be secret

if you want about loans to your local council they are now secret unless the council has been stupid enough to not understand people can do this

all loans information for my local council is now secret , the general public aren’t allowed to know what the financial situation is

all “information” about such things can only be told to you by the council alone and that information should be treated as suspect

once you’ve realised the enormity of the hole that the politicians have dug us into you realise the emperor has NO clothes

the existing management needs to be sacked and the whole process manned by new people on different contracts

restrospective laws limiting the perks and salaries and super of politicians needs to be put into effect and the full might of the public purse spent in defeating these parasites. you have a referendum that cuts out the laws courts – the people of australia have spoken!

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

if you look at the queensland treasury corporation you’ll see that stanwell power is nearly a billion dollars in the red (coal fired/ fossil fuels), in a word its – unsustainable

What the URL for that?

That’s the site map for QTC. No mention of Stanwell, that I could see.

https://www.qtc.com.au/qtc/public/web/home/site-map/site%20map%20-%20public%20website/site%20map%20-%20public%20website/!ut/p/a1/tVPLboMwEPwVeuAI3vA0vTlVlaZKVDWPJnCpMDGBFDABpzT9-po0Uh8KaXuoD9ZaO7s7syOjAC1RUITP6ToUKS_CrH0HzqM7cKe43yOAiePB8O7Bnfdn14TYpgT4nwGDG4xhiL0JnuCZAQA_1S9QgIKoEKVIkB_xQrBCqLAVkdIwWqeCqdDeiuA8q49xHpYfkaIp5Y5m6feCU6l2VhmlKznJsM0VBbBiFoZ25FHqQEx7FtDIWTELjrqg45Df6erezGBknwccVncAnOHgS5JuF4t7bKLpHxTf_sJqoxpfjdeyZSgSLS1ijpbdyz6XQn662W4DIr1vPX8RaPnv5kuBKc31Jsp10E3btcCzHMdwXCnUaCmRgppYqqtYzCpW6btKfoBEiLK-VEGFpml0yU2PeK6HuwNPFd5nyCSjKiQ8PzLQJINTLRNeS6lfO6Eyn-fY3GtPEwymnW325uuILcjFGzpCf2Y!/dl5/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/

Michael V said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

if you look at the queensland treasury corporation you’ll see that stanwell power is nearly a billion dollars in the red (coal fired/ fossil fuels), in a word its – unsustainable

What the URL for that?

That’s the site map for QTC. No mention of Stanwell, that I could see.

https://www.qtc.com.au/qtc/public/web/home/site-map/site%20map%20-%20public%20website/site%20map%20-%20public%20website/!ut/p/a1/tVPLboMwEPwVeuAI3vA0vTlVlaZKVDWPJnCpMDGBFDABpzT9-po0Uh8KaXuoD9ZaO7s7syOjAC1RUITP6ToUKS_CrH0HzqM7cKe43yOAiePB8O7Bnfdn14TYpgT4nwGDG4xhiL0JnuCZAQA_1S9QgIKoEKVIkB_xQrBCqLAVkdIwWqeCqdDeiuA8q49xHpYfkaIp5Y5m6feCU6l2VhmlKznJsM0VBbBiFoZ25FHqQEx7FtDIWTELjrqg45Df6erezGBknwccVncAnOHgS5JuF4t7bKLpHxTf_sJqoxpfjdeyZSgSLS1ijpbdyz6XQn662W4DIr1vPX8RaPnv5kuBKc31Jsp10E3btcCzHMdwXCnUaCmRgppYqqtYzCpW6btKfoBEiLK-VEGFpml0yU2PeK6HuwNPFd5nyCSjKiQ8PzLQJINTLRNeS6lfO6Eyn-fY3GtPEwymnW325uuILcjFGzpCf2Y!/dl5/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/

https://www.qtc.qld.gov.au/qtc/public/web/aboutqtc/corporate-overview/annual-reports

page 50

government owned corporations

add three more zeroes to the figures shown

energex 7 billion dollars

wookiemeister said:

https://www.qtc.qld.gov.au/qtc/public/web/aboutqtc/corporate-overview/annual-reports

I don’t know where to look?

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

https://www.qtc.qld.gov.au/qtc/public/web/aboutqtc/corporate-overview/annual-reports

I don’t know where to look?

appendix A loans to clients at the very end of the 2014 – 2015 annual report

wookiemeister said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

if you look at the queensland treasury corporation you’ll see that stanwell power is nearly a billion dollars in the red (coal fired/ fossil fuels), in a word its – unsustainable

What the URL for that?

https://www.qtc.qld.gov.au/qtc/public/web/aboutqtc/corporate-overview/annual-reports

Actually:

https://www.qtc.qld.gov.au/qtc/wcm/connect/d6f51fd8-d2b7-4d24-a080-4853f7737b2b/Web+-+QTC+Annual+Report+2014-15-FULL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&attachment=true&id=1443596247482

The debt is: $639,161,000. Just 10% of wookie’s claim.

(Assets: ~$60 Bn, from another site.) Pretty good Asses/Debt ratio, I reckon.

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What the URL for that?

https://www.qtc.qld.gov.au/qtc/public/web/aboutqtc/corporate-overview/annual-reports

Actually:

https://www.qtc.qld.gov.au/qtc/wcm/connect/d6f51fd8-d2b7-4d24-a080-4853f7737b2b/Web+-+QTC+Annual+Report+2014-15-FULL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&attachment=true&id=1443596247482

The debt is: $639,161,000. Just 10% of wookie’s claim.

(Assets: ~$60 Bn, from another site.) Pretty good Asses/Debt ratio, I reckon.

stanwell 902,689,000 million you have to ADD three zeroes to any figure you see

wookiemeister said:

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

https://www.qtc.qld.gov.au/qtc/public/web/aboutqtc/corporate-overview/annual-reports

Actually:

https://www.qtc.qld.gov.au/qtc/wcm/connect/d6f51fd8-d2b7-4d24-a080-4853f7737b2b/Web+-+QTC+Annual+Report+2014-15-FULL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&attachment=true&id=1443596247482

The debt is: $639,161,000. Just 10% of wookie’s claim.

(Assets: ~$60 Bn, from another site.) Pretty good Asses/Debt ratio, I reckon.

stanwell 902,689,000 million you have to ADD three zeroes to any figure you see

639,161,000 is from last year not june 2015

they’ve added 300 million dollars debt in ONE year

that’s not normal

the market value is what the lender figures they can get from the people taking the loan

the lender’s figures are king

wookiemeister said:

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

https://www.qtc.qld.gov.au/qtc/public/web/aboutqtc/corporate-overview/annual-reports

Actually:

https://www.qtc.qld.gov.au/qtc/wcm/connect/d6f51fd8-d2b7-4d24-a080-4853f7737b2b/Web+-+QTC+Annual+Report+2014-15-FULL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&attachment=true&id=1443596247482

The debt is: $639,161,000. Just 10% of wookie’s claim.

(Assets: ~$60 Bn, from another site.) Pretty good Asses/Debt ratio, I reckon.

stanwell 902,689,000 million you have to ADD three zeroes to any figure you see

Sorry, I read the wrong column. (I did add 3 zeros but from the incorrect column.

They have roughly one billion dollars debt. Asset : Debt = 60:1. Still a nice ratio.

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

Michael V said:

Actually:

https://www.qtc.qld.gov.au/qtc/wcm/connect/d6f51fd8-d2b7-4d24-a080-4853f7737b2b/Web+-+QTC+Annual+Report+2014-15-FULL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&attachment=true&id=1443596247482

The debt is: $639,161,000. Just 10% of wookie’s claim.

(Assets: ~$60 Bn, from another site.) Pretty good Asses/Debt ratio, I reckon.

stanwell 902,689,000 million you have to ADD three zeroes to any figure you see

Sorry, I read the wrong column. (I did add 3 zeros but from the incorrect column.

They have roughly one billion dollars debt. Asset : Debt = 60:1. Still a nice ratio.

when the titanic started sinking i’m sure they had a nice debt to asset ratio

and that asset is quickly growing older and more problematic guaranteed

the asset to debt ratio that keep mounting the debt until one day someone says

hey can i have that money back?

in reality no government or its companies should be in debt

wookiemeister said:

in reality no government or its companies should be in debt

That depends on the ratio of debts to assets.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

in reality no government or its companies should be in debt

That depends on the ratio of debts to assets.

As always, teh wak shows a consistent misunderstanding of debt used by both business and gubmint.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

in reality no government or its companies should be in debt

That depends on the ratio of debts to assets.

no that’s used when people aren’t doing their job properly

companies fall over if the lender decides to pull the rug

poikilotherm said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

in reality no government or its companies should be in debt

That depends on the ratio of debts to assets.

As always, teh wak shows a consistent misunderstanding of debt used by both business and gubmint.

not at all

they want to keep raising the GST

if we were so rich in actual assets well, everything would be fine

local councils create assets to debt ratios based on the value of water pipes in your street or parks – things they can’t actually sell

wookiemeister said:

local councils create assets to debt ratios based on the value of water pipes in your street or parks – things they can’t actually sell

The water that flows through the pipes has value and this can be used to determine a reasonable valuation of the actual pipes/infrastructure.

the government is taking debt on your behalf without your permission as the guarantor – that’s a very strange situation

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

local councils create assets to debt ratios based on the value of water pipes in your street or parks – things they can’t actually sell

The water that flows through the pipes has value and this can be used to determine a reasonable valuation of the actual pipes/infrastructure.

and even broken pipes witty

not to mention that its fantasy figures you’ve used to get what you want

going into chat

wrong thread

Hey Rev, let us all know how your attempt turns out.

even though it will b an easy $100,000 for you, i’m willing to put cough the $10 entry fee

lol

The_observer said:

Hey Rev, let us all know how your attempt turns out.

even though it will b an easy $100,000 for you, i’m willing to put cough the $10 entry fee

lol

Why do you think I would want to waste my time and money attempting to solve this task, when he has presumably gone to considerable trouble to make sure it can’t be done?

What would be worthwhile would be for you to do some truly skeptical research to educate yourself on what the implications of his observation are.

But I won’t hold my breath waiting for that.

The_observer said:

Spot the trend: $100,000 USD prize to show climate & temperature data is not random

Ross McKittrick writes via email:

A UK-based math buff and former investment analyst named Douglas Keenan has posted an intriguing comment on the internet. He takes the view that global temperature series are dominated by randomness and contain no trend, and that existing analyses supposedly showing a significant trend are wrong. He states:

There have been many claims of observational evidence for global-warming alarmism. I have argued that all such claims rely on invalid statistical analyses. Some people, though, have asserted that the analyses are valid. Those people assert, in particular, that they can determine, via statistical analysis, whether global temperatures are increasing more that would be reasonably expected by random natural variation. Those people do not present any counter to my argument, but they make their assertions anyway.

In response to that, I am sponsoring a contest: the prize is $100 000. In essence, the prize will be awarded to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.

He would like such people to substantiate their claim to be able to identify trends. To this end he has posted a file of 1000 time series, some with trends and some without. And…

A prize of $100 000 (one hundred thousand U.S. dollars) will be awarded to the first person, or group of people, who correctly identifies at least 900 series: i.e. which series were generated by a trendless process and which were generated by a trending process.

You have until 30 November 2016 or until someone wins the contest. Each entry costs $10; this is being done to inhibit non-serious entries.
Good luck!

Details here: http://www.informath.org/Contest1000.htm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/18/spot-the-trend-10000-usd-prizes-to-show-climate-temperature-data-is-not-random/

A word of warning. Alfred Russel Wallace went broke after proving that the Earth was Round when the great amount of Prize money that was offered by the Flat Earth Society was unfairly withheld.

mollwollfumble said:

A word of warning. Alfred Russel Wallace went broke after proving that the Earth was Round when the great amount of Prize money that was offered by the Flat Earth Society was unfairly withheld.

Clearly the Flat Earth Society should have operated differently.

They should have generated 1000 lines with a length of 100 m and points with small random offsets from the line.
The would then give 500 of these lines a small curvature (say a radius of the order of 6000 km).
They could then invite Alfred Russell Wallace to detect which were the curved lines.

The world is round so that it can go around. If it were flat it couldn’t go at all.

Ultimately the responsibility is ours. Shirking that responsibility is just a dead end.

furious said:

I don’t know anything about the data in this chart, I’m just posting it because I came across it, or a similar one, in an unrelated search and thought it took an interesting approach…

here’s how I view global warming furious

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

In light of the above and other similar organisations of which McKitrick is a member, I don’t think anyone will be picking up the money. They used to call these people snake-oil salesmen. However the Observer is easily fooled by them.

you idiot pf!

Ross McKitrick has nothing to do with running the competition, Douglas Keenan is.

Now, if you want to take part to prove him wrong, & desist with the bullshit, go for your life.

.It would seem Douglas Keenan is a raving loony, the links below will give some indication of how bad he is.

http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/tag/doug-keenan/

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2012/04/a-climate-skeptics-objection-to-ideology-politics-as-motives/

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/we-need-a-better-class-of-climate-skeptic/

If I were you Observer, in order to make a point, I would be looking to reputable scientists.

pf

In essence, the prize will be awared to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.

go for it mate.

Cymek said:

I find it strange that skeptics don’t seem to get the fact that even if global warming is a huge conspiracy

what if I said cymek that I don’t look at it at as being a conspiracy?

would that be strange too?

PermeateFree said:

The Observer is a pseudoscience devotee and I am a strong sceptic of that position.

pf is an alarmist who believes that worst-case senario’s are inevitable & anyone who disagrees is a pseudoscience devotee.

pf does not know a thing about the science, but agrees anyway with worst-case senarios because of his blind devoutness to everything environmental. This is why he is 100% ad hominem & zero science.

I, on the other hand, just don’t believe we will get very much warming from increasing co2 because the data is showing that water vapor feedback to increasing co2 is not positive, but infact negative to increasing co2.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The_observer said:

Hey Rev, let us all know how your attempt turns out.

even though it will b an easy $100,000 for you, i’m willing to put cough the $10 entry fee

lol

Why do you think I would want to waste my time and money attempting to solve this task, when he has presumably gone to considerable trouble to make sure it can’t be done?

Rev, you just have to demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.

You will win $100,000.

Why won’t you have a go ???

Oh shit, I realise now why you won’t, & instead just post snide arrogant remarks!

You have admitted that no one can demonstrate that recent warming in not just natural variation.

LOL

The_observer said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The_observer said:

Hey Rev, let us all know how your attempt turns out.

even though it will b an easy $100,000 for you, i’m willing to put cough the $10 entry fee

lol

Why do you think I would want to waste my time and money attempting to solve this task, when he has presumably gone to considerable trouble to make sure it can’t be done?

Rev, you just have to demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.

You will win $100,000.

Why won’t you have a go ???

Oh shit, I realise now why you won’t, & instead just post snide arrogant remarks!

You have admitted that no one can demonstrate that recent warming in not just natural variation.

LOL

it’s a shame they don’t want to look into it scientifically

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why do you think I would want to waste my time and money attempting to solve this task, when he has presumably gone to considerable trouble to make sure it can’t be done?

Rev, you just have to demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.

You will win $100,000.

Why won’t you have a go ???

Oh shit, I realise now why you won’t, & instead just post snide arrogant remarks!

You have admitted that no one can demonstrate that recent warming in not just natural variation.

LOL

it’s a shame they don’t want to look into it scientifically

I think you’ll find that statistics is a huge part of science
ss

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

Rev, you just have to demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.

You will win $100,000.

Why won’t you have a go ???

Oh shit, I realise now why you won’t, & instead just post snide arrogant remarks!

You have admitted that no one can demonstrate that recent warming in not just natural variation.

LOL

it’s a shame they don’t want to look into it scientifically

I think you’ll find that statistics is a huge part of science
ss

any scientific credibility has been removed by the use of 1 word above.. ‘probably’

i think you may be confusing the word probability with the word probably.
statistics should show confirmations, not speculations…

The Rev Dodgson said:

To be charitable, it is quite possible that “The_observer” is so unskeptical that he doesn’t even realise that the statistical exercise described shows why virtually all the “evidence” put forward by the Unskeptical Climate Change Doubter Alarmists is valueless.

Whether we should be so charitable about the mathematician running the exercise is doubtful.

“Unskeptical Climate Change Doubter Alarmists”

how childish, & the arrogance of the post is extrordinary.

The data shows that the water vapor emissions layer has not assended Rev, but decended.

That shows that water vapor feedback is negative to increasing atmospheric co2, not positive.

That makes a huge difference to the warming we’ll get from a 2 x co2 scenario because water vapor fedback will mostly cancel out the slight warming from co2.

That the ipcc’s models all hypothise positive + W V feedback, & that they state that of ALL the feedbacks, + W V feedback is the strongest (in the models), considering their lower range is only 1.5C for 2 x co2 that won’t leave much warming.

Now rev, you be unscepticle & deny this very important data & just continue with your snide remarks.

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

it’s a shame they don’t want to look into it scientifically

I think you’ll find that statistics is a huge part of science
ss

any scientific credibility has been removed by the use of 1 word above.. ‘probably’

i think you may be confusing the word probability with the word probably.
statistics should show confirmations, not speculations…

But ss, the IPCC use the very same word, & words just like it all the time.

In any case ss, the moneys up for grabs. If you think you can demonstrate that recent warming was not within natural variation that is.

According to the Rev, it can’t be proven, & that’s pretty well sums it up.

The_observer said:

furious said:

I don’t know anything about the data in this chart, I’m just posting it because I came across it, or a similar one, in an unrelated search and thought it took an interesting approach…

here’s how I view global warming furious

No. It is not how you view. It is how you read others views.

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

I think you’ll find that statistics is a huge part of science
ss

any scientific credibility has been removed by the use of 1 word above.. ‘probably’

i think you may be confusing the word probability with the word probably.
statistics should show confirmations, not speculations…

But ss, the IPCC use the very same word, & words just like it all the time.

In any case ss, the moneys up for grabs. If you think you can demonstrate that recent warming was not within natural variation that is.

According to the Rev, it can’t be proven, & that’s pretty well sums it up.

i don’t believe that the IPCC are asking anyone to ‘prove’ that something will ‘probably happen’…

a complete contradiction in terms

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

furious said:

I don’t know anything about the data in this chart, I’m just posting it because I came across it, or a similar one, in an unrelated search and thought it took an interesting approach…

here’s how I view global warming furious

No. It is not how you view. It is how you read others views.

that graph is others views rough.

Your views are others views.

I view it just how I’ve posted it in this thread.

any chance of you having a go at the $100,000 challenge instead of challenging me???

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

I think you’ll find that statistics is a huge part of science
ss

any scientific credibility has been removed by the use of 1 word above.. ‘probably’

i think you may be confusing the word probability with the word probably.
statistics should show confirmations, not speculations…

But ss, the IPCC use the very same word, & words just like it all the time.

In any case ss, the moneys up for grabs. If you think you can demonstrate that recent warming was not within natural variation that is.

According to the Rev, it can’t be proven, & that’s pretty well sums it up.

Didn’t it coast $10 to enter? Bet they never raise the $100,000 from entries. Nobody would bother.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

here’s how I view global warming furious

No. It is not how you view. It is how you read others views.

that graph is others views rough. …yep

Your views are others views. … not a chance.

I view it just how I’ve posted it in this thread. …Yeah but you are a nutter.

any chance of you having a go at the $100,000 challenge instead of challenging me??? … I’ve already spent way more than that trying to get dunderheads to pull the wool off their eyes.

My answers are intertwined with your text.

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

any scientific credibility has been removed by the use of 1 word above.. ‘probably’

i think you may be confusing the word probability with the word probably.
statistics should show confirmations, not speculations…

But ss, the IPCC use the very same word, & words just like it all the time.

In any case ss, the moneys up for grabs. If you think you can demonstrate that recent warming was not within natural variation that is.

According to the Rev, it can’t be proven, & that’s pretty well sums it up.

i don’t believe that the IPCC are asking anyone to ‘prove’ that something will ‘probably happen’…

a complete contradiction in terms

Don’t move the posts. The IPCC use words like probably, might, could, very likely.

and yes they are – asking anyone to ‘prove’ that something will ‘probably happen’. Global warming.

And since you are going so far off track,,, the prize will be awared to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the recent increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

But ss, the IPCC use the very same word, & words just like it all the time.

In any case ss, the moneys up for grabs. If you think you can demonstrate that recent warming was not within natural variation that is.

According to the Rev, it can’t be proven, & that’s pretty well sums it up.

i don’t believe that the IPCC are asking anyone to ‘prove’ that something will ‘probably happen’…

a complete contradiction in terms

Don’t move the posts. The IPCC use words like probably, might, could, very likely.

and yes they are – asking anyone to ‘prove’ that something will ‘probably happen’. Global warming.

And since you are going so far off track,,, the prize will be awared to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the recent increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation

In other words they will never spend the money because they couldn’t be awared.

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

But ss, the IPCC use the very same word, & words just like it all the time.

In any case ss, the moneys up for grabs. If you think you can demonstrate that recent warming was not within natural variation that is.

According to the Rev, it can’t be proven, & that’s pretty well sums it up.

i don’t believe that the IPCC are asking anyone to ‘prove’ that something will ‘probably happen’…

a complete contradiction in terms

Don’t move the posts. The IPCC use words like probably, might, could, very likely.

and yes they are – asking anyone to ‘prove’ that something will ‘probably happen’. Global warming.

And since you are going so far off track,,, the prize will be awared to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the recent increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation

so they know that by definition, you can’t use statistics to do that and it’s just a scam to draw money out of the uneducated..
be better off sending nigerian emails…

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

any scientific credibility has been removed by the use of 1 word above.. ‘probably’

i think you may be confusing the word probability with the word probably.
statistics should show confirmations, not speculations…

But ss, the IPCC use the very same word, & words just like it all the time.

In any case ss, the moneys up for grabs. If you think you can demonstrate that recent warming was not within natural variation that is.

According to the Rev, it can’t be proven, & that’s pretty well sums it up.

Didn’t it coast $10 to enter? Bet they never raise the $100,000 from entries. Nobody would bother.

the $10 is just an attempt to keep out the muckers.

and nobody will bother entering, if they know they can’t prove that recent warming isn’t within natural variation.

The Rev knows that it’s not provable. So anyone who says recent warming doesn’t lay within naturable variation is lying.

It’s a bit like a previous thread I started that showed that anyone who says recent warming is faster than at anytime in history is lying.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

i don’t believe that the IPCC are asking anyone to ‘prove’ that something will ‘probably happen’…

a complete contradiction in terms

Don’t move the posts. The IPCC use words like probably, might, could, very likely.

and yes they are – asking anyone to ‘prove’ that something will ‘probably happen’. Global warming.

And since you are going so far off track,,, the prize will be awared to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the recent increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation

In other words they will never spend the money because they couldn’t be awared.

yes, because recent warming falls within natural variability. This makes it very difficult to prove co2 has had any affect at all.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

Didn’t it coast $10 to enter? Bet they never raise the $100,000 from entries. Nobody would bother.

naturable

hah. If you know all, then why don’t you come up telling us when you win the prize.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

Don’t move the posts. The IPCC use words like probably, might, could, very likely.

and yes they are – asking anyone to ‘prove’ that something will ‘probably happen’. Global warming.

And since you are going so far off track,,, the prize will be awared to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the recent increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation

In other words they will never spend the money because they couldn’t be awared.

yes, because recent warming falls within natural variability. This makes it very difficult to prove co2 has had any affect at all.

Wrong on the first count. It isn’t all about CO2 alone. So erroneous on the second as well.

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

i don’t believe that the IPCC are asking anyone to ‘prove’ that something will ‘probably happen’…

a complete contradiction in terms

Don’t move the posts. The IPCC use words like probably, might, could, very likely.

and yes they are – asking anyone to ‘prove’ that something will ‘probably happen’. Global warming.

And since you are going so far off track,,, the prize will be awared to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the recent increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation

so they know that by definition, you can’t use statistics to do that and it’s just a scam to draw money out of the uneducated..
be better off sending nigerian emails…

I’m sure that the uneducated won’t attempt the challenge.

But, all the educated alarmist citizens who say that recent warming is out of natural variability, because of co2, have been afforded a great oppotunity to prove their case,,, if they can.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

Didn’t it coast $10 to enter? Bet they never raise the $100,000 from entries. Nobody would bother.

naturable

hah. If you know all, then why don’t you come up telling us when you win the prize.

this thread is great, as demonstrated repeatedly.

because instead of taking up the challenge, people here would rather just target me.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

In other words they will never spend the money because they couldn’t be awared.

yes, because recent warming falls within natural variability. This makes it very difficult to prove co2 has had any affect at all.

Wrong on the first count.

well take the $100,000 challenge if you are that sure rough, & stop argueing with the messanger.

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

Don’t move the posts. The IPCC use words like probably, might, could, very likely.

and yes they are – asking anyone to ‘prove’ that something will ‘probably happen’. Global warming.

And since you are going so far off track,,, the prize will be awared to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the recent increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation

so they know that by definition, you can’t use statistics to do that and it’s just a scam to draw money out of the uneducated..
be better off sending nigerian emails…

I’m sure that the uneducated won’t attempt the challenge.

But, all the educated alarmist citizens who say that recent warming is out of natural variability, because of co2, have been afforded a great oppotunity to prove their case,,, if they can.

I’d say that they’ll find that money cannot buy liars.

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

Don’t move the posts. The IPCC use words like probably, might, could, very likely.

and yes they are – asking anyone to ‘prove’ that something will ‘probably happen’. Global warming.

And since you are going so far off track,,, the prize will be awared to anyone who can demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the recent increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation

so they know that by definition, you can’t use statistics to do that and it’s just a scam to draw money out of the uneducated..
be better off sending nigerian emails…

I’m sure that the uneducated won’t attempt the challenge.

But, all the educated alarmist citizens who say that recent warming is out of natural variability, because of co2, have been afforded a great oppotunity to prove their case,,, if they can.

I think the funny thing is that he has figured out he can’t prove that it is due to natural variation, so he has used the old ‘it’s up to you to prove my theory wrong’ approach.

quite obvious about his level of education in a scientific field by his use of terminology

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

naturable

hah. If you know all, then why don’t you come up telling us when you win the prize.

this thread is great, as demonstrated repeatedly.

because instead of taking up the challenge, people here would rather just target me.

If anyone read the same things you do then they wouldn’t need you to tell them, Is that what you are trying to say?

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

yes, because recent warming falls within natural variability. This makes it very difficult to prove co2 has had any affect at all.

Wrong on the first count.

well take the $100,000 challenge if you are that sure rough, & stop argueing with the messanger.

As I said, I’ve already spent more of my own money being a messenger. Which is the reason you are here with this crap.

The_observer said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The_observer said:

Hey Rev, let us all know how your attempt turns out.

even though it will b an easy $100,000 for you, i’m willing to put cough the $10 entry fee

lol

Why do you think I would want to waste my time and money attempting to solve this task, when he has presumably gone to considerable trouble to make sure it can’t be done?

Rev, you just have to demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.

You will win $100,000.

Why won’t you have a go ???

Oh shit, I realise now why you won’t, & instead just post snide arrogant remarks!

You have admitted that no one can demonstrate that recent warming in not just natural variation.

LOL

All the standard stuff.

Anything you can’t respond to you just repeat the same garbage you started with, with a few ad hominem remarks thrown in for good measure.

Why not apply a little skepticism to things you read for a change?

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

so they know that by definition, you can’t use statistics to do that and it’s just a scam to draw money out of the uneducated..
be better off sending nigerian emails…

I’m sure that the uneducated won’t attempt the challenge.

But, all the educated alarmist citizens who say that recent warming is out of natural variability, because of co2, have been afforded a great oppotunity to prove their case,,, if they can.

I think the funny thing is that he has figured out he can’t prove that it is due to natural variation, so he has used the old ‘it’s up to you to prove my theory wrong’ approach.

quite obvious about his level of education in a scientific field by his use of terminology

What is also funny is that he calls the alarmists, the educated. Unaware of the fact that only the uneducated will fall for this.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

so they know that by definition, you can’t use statistics to do that and it’s just a scam to draw money out of the uneducated..
be better off sending nigerian emails…

I’m sure that the uneducated won’t attempt the challenge.

But, all the educated alarmist citizens who say that recent warming is out of natural variability, because of co2, have been afforded a great oppotunity to prove their case,,, if they can.

I’d say that they’ll find that money cannot buy liars.

complete denial

lol

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

so they know that by definition, you can’t use statistics to do that and it’s just a scam to draw money out of the uneducated..
be better off sending nigerian emails…

I’m sure that the uneducated won’t attempt the challenge.

But, all the educated alarmist citizens who say that recent warming is out of natural variability, because of co2, have been afforded a great oppotunity to prove their case,,, if they can.

I think the funny thing is that he has figured out he can’t prove that it is due to natural variation, so he has used the old ‘it’s up to you to prove my theory wrong’ approach.

quite obvious about his level of education in a scientific field by his use of terminology

No, if recent warming isn’t within natural variability, AS REPEATEDLY STATED BY ALARMISTS, then it is up to them to prove that, by statisitical anaylis.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

hah. If you know all, then why don’t you come up telling us when you win the prize.

this thread is great, as demonstrated repeatedly.

because instead of taking up the challenge, people here would rather just target me.

If anyone read the same things you do then they wouldn’t need you to tell them, Is that what you are trying to say?

take up the challenge denier

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

Wrong on the first count.

well take the $100,000 challenge if you are that sure rough, & stop argueing with the messanger.

As I said, I’ve already spent more of my own money being a messenger. Which is the reason you are here with this crap.

take up the challenge denier!

The Rev Dodgson said:

The_observer said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why do you think I would want to waste my time and money attempting to solve this task, when he has presumably gone to considerable trouble to make sure it can’t be done?

Rev, you just have to demonstrate, via statistical analysis, that the increase in global temperatures is probably not due to random natural variation.

You will win $100,000.

Why won’t you have a go ???

Oh shit, I realise now why you won’t, & instead just post snide arrogant remarks!

You have admitted that no one can demonstrate that recent warming in not just natural variation.

LOL

All the standard stuff.

Anything you can’t respond to you just repeat the same garbage you started with, with a few ad hominem remarks thrown in for good measure.

Why not apply a little skepticism to things you read for a change?

take up the challenge denier coward!

roughbarked said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The_observer said:

I’m sure that the uneducated won’t attempt the challenge.

But, all the educated alarmist citizens who say that recent warming is out of natural variability, because of co2, have been afforded a great oppotunity to prove their case,,, if they can.

I think the funny thing is that he has figured out he can’t prove that it is due to natural variation, so he has used the old ‘it’s up to you to prove my theory wrong’ approach.

quite obvious about his level of education in a scientific field by his use of terminology

What is also funny is that he calls the alarmists, the educated. Unaware of the fact that only the uneducated will fall for this.

take up the challenge denier coward!

The deniers are those who are silly enough to believe that the educated are reading the same things you are copy pasting to here. The funny thing is that education teaches us to be sceptical and that it is this healthy scepticism that has allowed us to avoid bothering with propaganda that has no basis in fact. Raise the reward to 100 million and the outcome will still be the same. What price your childrens childrens children?

The_observer said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

To be charitable, it is quite possible that “The_observer” is so unskeptical that he doesn’t even realise that the statistical exercise described shows why virtually all the “evidence” put forward by the Unskeptical Climate Change Doubter Alarmists is valueless.

Whether we should be so charitable about the mathematician running the exercise is doubtful.

“Unskeptical Climate Change Doubter Alarmists”

how childish, & the arrogance of the post is extrordinary.

No, it is not childish or in the least arrogant, it is a simply a factual description of the output of the people you quote:

1. They accept without question any evidence that appears to show, or can be manipulated to show, little or no correlation between CO2 levels and climate, and ignore without question any evidence that shows the contrary. They are clearly unskeptical

2. They grossly exaggerate the costs and consequences of measures proposed to reduce GHG emissions. They are clearly alarmists.

3. They doubt that climate change is a significant problem. They are clearly Climate Change doubters.

So they are Unskeptical Climate Change Doubter Alarmists; it’s just a description of a group of people, no more, no less.

The_observer said:

The data shows that the water vapor emissions layer has not assended Rev, but decended.

That shows that water vapor feedback is negative to increasing atmospheric co2, not positive.

That makes a huge difference to the warming we’ll get from a 2 x co2 scenario because water vapor fedback will mostly cancel out the slight warming from co2.

That the ipcc’s models all hypothise positive + W V feedback, & that they state that of ALL the feedbacks, + W V feedback is the strongest (in the models), considering their lower range is only 1.5C for 2 x co2 that won’t leave much warming.

Now rev, you be unscepticle & deny this very important data & just continue with your snide remarks.

Have you got a link to a scientific skeptical examination of this argument? I have never seen one that ends up concluding that it is likely to be correct, but if there is one out there, I would love to see it.

The_observer said:

According to the Rev, it can’t be proven, & that’s pretty well sums it up.

The_observer said:

The Rev knows that it’s not provable.

Since you appear to have decided in the last few minutes that my opinions are not in fact childish and arrogant, but are in fact worth listening to, you had better get them right:

1. The proposed statistical exercise has absolutely nothing to do with climate science. It is set up to be unsolvable by selecting a mathematical simulation of a tiny sub-set of actual data, and ignoring all other evidence. It is a close analogy to asking people to prove that the world is not flat, based on a series of simulated ground levels over a short straight line.

2. The question is not whether we can prove that it is certain that GHG emissions will have a disastrous effect on the climate. The questions are:
- can we be reasonably confident that the costs of reducing emissions will be greater than the resulting costs of “business as usual”?
- can we be very confident that continuing high levels of GHG emissions will not result in severe localised costs?
- can we be near certain that continuing high levels of GHG emissions will not result in disastrous results on a global scale?

If the answer to any of those questions is “no” then it is obvious that GHG emissions need to be controlled. It seems to me that the answer is “no” to all 3. All this is standard engineering practice, as adopted in the design of any system that may have undesirable consequences if thing s go wrong.

But you know all that, and choose to ignore it.

So I read a few posts in this thread and decided I needed to go back to the beginning:

>>He would like such people to substantiate their claim to be able to identify trends. To this end he has posted a file of 1000 time series, some with trends and some without. And…

A prize of $100 000 (one hundred thousand U.S. dollars) will be awarded to the first person, or group of people, who correctly identifies at least 900 series: i.e. which series were generated by a trendless process and which were generated by a trending process.<<

So, see if I have this right. 1000 time series = blocks of data for value (proxy for temperature) for a given time period? Some of these were generated using trends. Some were generated randomly. He wants people to prove they can pick trending from random.

Is that it?

buffy said:

So I read a few posts in this thread and decided I needed to go back to the beginning:

>>He would like such people to substantiate their claim to be able to identify trends. To this end he has posted a file of 1000 time series, some with trends and some without. And…

A prize of $100 000 (one hundred thousand U.S. dollars) will be awarded to the first person, or group of people, who correctly identifies at least 900 series: i.e. which series were generated by a trendless process and which were generated by a trending process.<<

So, see if I have this right. 1000 time series = blocks of data for value (proxy for temperature) for a given time period? Some of these were generated using trends. Some were generated randomly. He wants people to prove they can pick trending from random.

Is that it?

That seems to be it.

Ta. Long time since I did real stats of any sort. I only do business figures these days.

Things must be getting desperate at climate change denier headquarters if they’re needing to fund raise with competitions.

ruby said:

Things must be getting desperate at climate change denier headquarters if they’re needing to fund raise with competitions.

They should start a kick stater campaign.

I reckon the nuclear energy companies might be going to help them out soon.

‘Just in case this climate change thing is real, we better shift away from coal and get into other forms of power generation’

ruby said:

I reckon the nuclear energy companies might be going to help them out soon.

‘Just in case this climate change thing is real, we better shift away from coal and get into other forms of power generation’

Wood fired steam generators ?

roughbarked said:

The deniers are those who are silly enough to believe that the educated are reading the same things you are copy pasting to here. The funny thing is that education teaches us to be sceptical and that it is this healthy scepticism that has allowed us to avoid bothering with propaganda that has no basis in fact. Raise the reward to 100 million and the outcome will still be the same. What price your childrens childrens children?

take up the challenge denier coward!

CrazyNeutrino said:

ruby said:

I reckon the nuclear energy companies might be going to help them out soon.

‘Just in case this climate change thing is real, we better shift away from coal and get into other forms of power generation’

Wood fired steam generators ?

Wood burning gives off CO2, too. Probably quite a bit more per unit energy than coal.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The_observer said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

To be charitable, it is quite possible that “The_observer” is so unskeptical that he doesn’t even realise that the statistical exercise described shows why virtually all the “evidence” put forward by the Unskeptical Climate Change Doubter Alarmists is valueless.

Whether we should be so charitable about the mathematician running the exercise is doubtful.

“Unskeptical Climate Change Doubter Alarmists”

how childish, & the arrogance of the post is extrordinary.

No, it is not childish or in the least arrogant, it is a simply a factual description of the output of the people you quote:

1. They accept without question any evidence that appears to show, or can be manipulated to show, little or no correlation between CO2 levels and climate, and ignore without question any evidence that shows the contrary. They are clearly unskeptical

2. They grossly exaggerate the costs and consequences of measures proposed to reduce GHG emissions. They are clearly alarmists.

3. They doubt that climate change is a significant problem. They are clearly Climate Change doubters.

So they are Unskeptical Climate Change Doubter Alarmists; it’s just a description of a group of people, no more, no less.

The_observer said:

The data shows that the water vapor emissions layer has not assended Rev, but decended.

That shows that water vapor feedback is negative to increasing atmospheric co2, not positive.

That makes a huge difference to the warming we’ll get from a 2 x co2 scenario because water vapor fedback will mostly cancel out the slight warming from co2.

That the ipcc’s models all hypothise positive + W V feedback, & that they state that of ALL the feedbacks, + W V feedback is the strongest (in the models), considering their lower range is only 1.5C for 2 x co2 that won’t leave much warming.

Now rev, you be unscepticle & deny this very important data & just continue with your snide remarks.

Have you got a link to a scientific skeptical examination of this argument? I have never seen one that ends up concluding that it is likely to be correct, but if there is one out there, I would love to see it.

The_observer said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The_observer said:

No, it is not childish or in the least arrogant, it is a simply a factual description of the output of the people you quote:

1. They accept without question any evidence that appears to show, or can be manipulated to show, little or no correlation between CO2 levels and climate, and ignore without question any evidence that shows the contrary. They are clearly unskeptical

2. They grossly exaggerate the costs and consequences of measures proposed to reduce GHG emissions. They are clearly alarmists.

3. They doubt that climate change is a significant problem. They are clearly Climate Change doubters.

So they are Unskeptical Climate Change Doubter Alarmists; it’s just a description of a group of people, no more, no less.

The_observer said:

The data shows that the water vapor emissions layer has not assended Rev, but decended.

That shows that water vapor feedback is negative to increasing atmospheric co2, not positive.

That makes a huge difference to the warming we’ll get from a 2 x co2 scenario because water vapor fedback will mostly cancel out the slight warming from co2.

That the ipcc’s models all hypothise positive + W V feedback, & that they state that of ALL the feedbacks, + W V feedback is the strongest (in the models), considering their lower range is only 1.5C for 2 x co2 that won’t leave much warming.

Now rev, you be unscepticle & deny this very important data & just continue with your snide remarks.

Have you got a link to a scientific skeptical examination of this argument? I have never seen one that ends up concluding that it is likely to be correct, but if there is one out there, I would love to see it.

there’s plenty Rev, and perhaps the reason for your ignorance is you you don’t want to look

Here’s just one example from a recent post of mine regarding this -
.
.
From: The_observer
ID: 795035
Subject: re: Biophysicist wins PM’s Prize for Science
The Prime Minister’s Prize for Science recipient Graham Farquar, besides stating the obvious, that CO2 is good for humanity because it’s plant food, stupid;

quote – : “If we could get rid of all the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emitted since the industrial revolution, then agricultural productivity would drop by 15 per cent.”

has also found that climate models have got it wrong in regards to the strongest (hypothesied) positive feedback , water vapour feedback.

Farquhar found that the models that scientists use to predict much higher temperatures predict that as the world warmed, the winds would get stronger and air drier, causing more evaporation. But Farquhar found evaporation rates over the past 50 years have actually tended to decrease, because wind speeds had fallen.

“None of the climate models show such a decrease in wind speed,” he says. “It’s a paradox, which shows we haven’t thought about climate change and its impact enough yet.”

On the assessment of aridity with changes in atmospheric CO2

Authors Michael L. Roderick, Peter Greve, Graham D. Farquhar

Abstract – A recent interpretation of climate model projections concluded that “warmer is more arid.” In contrast, dust records and other evidence have led the geoscience community to conclude that “warmer is less arid” leading to an aridity paradox.
The “warmer is more arid” interpretation is based on a projected increase in the vapour pressure deficit (∼ 7–9% K−1) that results in a projected increase in potential evaporation that greatly exceeds the projected increase in precipitation. However, the increase in potential evaporation does not result in an increase in (actual) evaporation which remains more or less constant in the model output. Projected changes in the long-term aridity can be assessed by directly interrogating the climate model output. To that end, we equate lack of precipitation with meteorological aridity and lack of runoff with hydrologic aridity. A third perspective, agro-ecological aridity, is not directly related to the water lost but rather to the carbon gain and is equated with the reduction in photosynthetic uptake of CO2.

We reexamine the same climate model output and conclude that “warmer is less arid” from all perspectives and in agreement with the geological records.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The_observer said:

According to the Rev, it can’t be proven, & that’s pretty well sums it up.

The_observer said:

The Rev knows that it’s not provable.

Since you appear to have decided in the last few minutes that my opinions are not in fact childish and arrogant, but are in fact worth listening to, you had better get them right:

1. The proposed statistical exercise has absolutely nothing to do with climate science. It is set up to be unsolvable by selecting a mathematical simulation of a tiny sub-set of actual data, and ignoring all other evidence. It is a close analogy to asking people to prove that the world is not flat, based on a series of simulated ground levels over a short straight line.

2. The question is not whether we can prove that it is certain that GHG emissions will have a disastrous effect on the climate. The questions are:
- can we be reasonably confident that the costs of reducing emissions will be greater than the resulting costs of “business as usual”?
- can we be very confident that continuing high levels of GHG emissions will not result in severe localised costs?
- can we be near certain that continuing high levels of GHG emissions will not result in disastrous results on a global scale?

If the answer to any of those questions is “no” then it is obvious that GHG emissions need to be controlled. It seems to me that the answer is “no” to all 3. All this is standard engineering practice, as adopted in the design of any system that may have undesirable consequences if thing s go wrong.

But you know all that, and choose to ignore it.

do you believe Rev that recent warming is out of the ordinary, yes or no.

If you do believe it then prove it by the only means possible – statisical anaylsis

take up the challenge denier coward!

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

So I read a few posts in this thread and decided I needed to go back to the beginning:

>>He would like such people to substantiate their claim to be able to identify trends. To this end he has posted a file of 1000 time series, some with trends and some without. And…

A prize of $100 000 (one hundred thousand U.S. dollars) will be awarded to the first person, or group of people, who correctly identifies at least 900 series: i.e. which series were generated by a trendless process and which were generated by a trending process.<<

So, see if I have this right. 1000 time series = blocks of data for value (proxy for temperature) for a given time period? Some of these were generated using trends. Some were generated randomly. He wants people to prove they can pick trending from random.

Is that it?

That seems to be it.

yes, interesting the uproar this has generated here amongst my friends

ruby said:

Things must be getting desperate at climate change denier headquarters if they’re needing to fund raise with competitions.

ruby, how much warming do you believe we will get from a 2 x co2 scenario & why?

The_observer said:

do you believe Rev that recent warming is out of the ordinary, yes or no.

If you do believe it then prove it by the only means possible – statisical anaylsis

take up the challenge denier coward!

Since you have once again demonstrated that you either totally misunderstand or choose to ignore what I have been saying I will terminate the discussion here.

I will however note that the extent of your hypocrisy is impressive, even by Internet standards.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The_observer said:

do you believe Rev that recent warming is out of the ordinary, yes or no.

If you do believe it then prove it by the only means possible – statisical anaylsis

take up the challenge denier coward!

Since you have once again demonstrated that you either totally misunderstand or choose to ignore what I have been saying I will terminate the discussion here.

I will however note that the extent of your hypocrisy is impressive, even by Internet standards.

Rev, alarmists have been saying for some time that recent warming is out of the ordinary, outside natural varibility.

Whats the proof for that Rev, if you agree you must be able to say what it is?

The_observer said:

Rev, alarmists have been saying for some time that recent warming is out of the ordinary, outside natural varibility.

Whats the proof for that Rev, if you agree you must be able to say what it is?

Who cares what alarmists (of either type) have been saying? I am concerned with what scientists and engineers are saying:

The question is not whether we can prove that it is certain that GHG emissions will have a disastrous effect on the climate.

The questions are:

1. Can we be reasonably confident that the costs of reducing emissions will be greater than the resulting costs of “business as usual”? –

2. Can we be very confident that continuing high levels of GHG emissions will not result in severe localised costs?

3. Can we be near certain that continuing high levels of GHG emissions will not result in disastrous results on a global scale?

If you choose to discuss those questions at a later date, without the inflammatory crap, then I may choose to respond.

For today, I’ve had enough.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The_observer said:

Rev, alarmists have been saying for some time that recent warming is out of the ordinary, outside natural varibility.

Whats the proof for that Rev, if you agree you must be able to say what it is?

Who cares what alarmists (of either type) have been saying? I am concerned with what scientists and engineers are saying:

The question is not whether we can prove that it is certain that GHG emissions will have a disastrous effect on the climate.

The questions are:

1. Can we be reasonably confident that the costs of reducing emissions will be greater than the resulting costs of “business as usual”? –

2. Can we be very confident that continuing high levels of GHG emissions will not result in severe localised costs?

3. Can we be near certain that continuing high levels of GHG emissions will not result in disastrous results on a global scale?

If you choose to discuss those questions at a later date, without the inflammatory crap, then I may choose to respond.

For today, I’ve had enough.

firstly, good, you have agreed that recent warming is not outside natural variability.

The questions are:

1. Can we be reasonably confident that the costs of reducing emissions will be greater than the resulting costs of “business as usual”? –
Bjorn Lomborg & MIT have both shown that if each country agrees to, & administers its climate pledges at the next UN climate fest in Paris, the resulting effect will be to reduce warming (per the over sensitive hypothesis employed by the IPCC) by no more than 0.2 C by the year 2100.
This is at an estimated cost of 300 to 600 Billion Dollar$ a year.

The rest of your scenarios are simply overblown predictions to create alarm.

PS I find you entire attitude inflammatory.

The_observer said:

PS I find you entire attitude inflammatory.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

On the other hand, deliberately making summaries of what someone has said that are totally and obviously contrary to what they actually said is inflammatory.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The_observer said:

PS I find you entire attitude inflammatory.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

On the other hand, deliberately making summaries of what someone has said that are totally and obviously contrary to what they actually said is inflammatory.

your desperate son

The_observer said:

your desperate son

I don’t think the Rev has a son.

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

your desperate son

I don’t think the Rev has a son.

he desperately won’t admit that recent warming falls within natural variation,

but won’t say it does, because, he carn’t prove it.

neither is recent warming faster than at other times

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

your desperate son

I don’t think the Rev has a son.

LOL

The_observer said:

Bubblecar said:

The_observer said:

your desperate son

I don’t think the Rev has a son.

he desperately won’t admit that recent warming falls within natural variation,

but won’t say it does, because, he carn’t prove it.

neither is recent warming faster than at other times

I’m happy to leave these matters to the majority view of the appropriate experts.

signing off for now friends,

but will leave with -

back on topic – simply if you believe that recent warming is out side of natural variability

>>> take the challenge <<

and thus we see why T_o doesn’t post on a real science forum.

:-)

The universe doesn’t give a toss about opinion, it just carries on following the laws of science.

Quite a few years ago now I read articles about climate with computer modelling that showed we should be paying some attention to what mankind is doing with regards to the use of carbon.
So far the figures suggest that we should be definitely doing more than paying attention, we should be acting, and should have acted more vigourously in the past.

The observations suggest that a fair number of old business models need to change. And here lies the real problem. Certain sectors can do all the advertising and spin they like, but reality and commonsense has a way of sorting things out. If we keep going with business as usual, reality is going to be pretty awful for a great number of people.

Just like the old tobacco debate, science gives us facts and we can act on them. Or not. My father in law hated the science and facts regarding smoking. He chose to think that they wouldn’t affect him. His very sad, slow and painful death from emphysema was quite avoidable. But he was choosing his actions for himself. Climate affects us all.

The hopeful thing is that there are lots of well respected scientific organisations all around the world who are quietly going about their business of bringing in the data on climate, updating the science in line with that data, and informing us of the observations.
Another hopeful thing is that some very large players are now respecting what the science tells us, and are acting on it.
A bunch of old dinosaurs will be left huffing and puffing amongst themselves on the edge of a tarpit.

ruby said:

The universe doesn’t give a toss about opinion, it just carries on following the laws of science.

Quite a few years ago now I read articles about climate with computer modelling that showed we should be paying some attention to what mankind is doing with regards to the use of carbon.
So far the figures suggest that we should be definitely doing more than paying attention, we should be acting, and should have acted more vigourously in the past.

The observations suggest that a fair number of old business models need to change. And here lies the real problem. Certain sectors can do all the advertising and spin they like, but reality and commonsense has a way of sorting things out. If we keep going with business as usual, reality is going to be pretty awful for a great number of people.

Just like the old tobacco debate, science gives us facts and we can act on them. Or not. My father in law hated the science and facts regarding smoking. He chose to think that they wouldn’t affect him. His very sad, slow and painful death from emphysema was quite avoidable. But he was choosing his actions for himself. Climate affects us all.

The hopeful thing is that there are lots of well respected scientific organisations all around the world who are quietly going about their business of bringing in the data on climate, updating the science in line with that data, and informing us of the observations.
Another hopeful thing is that some very large players are now respecting what the science tells us, and are acting on it.
A bunch of old dinosaurs will be left huffing and puffing amongst themselves on the edge of a tarpit.

Hear hear.

An excellent summary ruby.

It basically comes down to profit versus responsibility, those making the money don’t want to admit their actions have long term repercussion for the entire human race.

those making the money don’t want to admit their actions have long term repercussion for the entire human race.

More like they really don’t care about the long term repercussions for the entire human race. Like my father in law, they probably think it won’t affect them. Short term, it will affect them far less than the average person.

ruby said:

those making the money don’t want to admit their actions have long term repercussion for the entire human race.

More like they really don’t care about the long term repercussions for the entire human race. Like my father in law, they probably think it won’t affect them. Short term, it will affect them far less than the average person.

Quite likely as if you are wealthy you have the means to cope

Cymek said:

ruby said:

those making the money don’t want to admit their actions have long term repercussion for the entire human race.

More like they really don’t care about the long term repercussions for the entire human race. Like my father in law, they probably think it won’t affect them. Short term, it will affect them far less than the average person.

Quite likely as if you are wealthy you have the means to cope

Even the wealthy need to eat, drink and avoid being caught in a bushfire. Money only works so far.

>>Wow, was this a bad year for those who deny the reality and the significance of human-induced climate change. Of course, there were the recent flurry of reports that 2014 surface temperatures had hit their hottest values ever recorded. The 2014 record was first called on this blog in December and the final results were reported as well, here. All of this happened in a year that the denialists told us would not be very hot.

But those denialists are having a tough time now as they look around the planet for ANY evidence that climate change is not happening. The problem is, they’ve been striking out.

And just recently, perhaps the most important bit of information came out about 2014 – how much the Earth actually warmed. What we find is that the warming is so great, NOAA literally has to remake its graphs. Let me explain this a bit.

We tend to focus on the global temperature average which is the average of air temperatures near the ground (or at the sea surface). This past year, global air temperatures were record-breaking. But that isn’t the same as global warming. Global warming is properly viewed as the amount of heat contained within the Earth’s energy system. So, air temperatures may go up and down on any given year as energy moves to or from the air (primarily from the ocean). What we really want to know is, did the Earth’s energy go up or down?

The trick to answering this question is to measure the change in energy of the oceans. A thorough review of ocean heat measurement methods is found here; we paid the requisite fee to make the paper open access. Anyone can download and read it.

So what do the new data show? Well, it turns out that the energy stored within the ocean (which is 90% or more of the total “global warming” heat), increased significantly. A plot from NOAA is shown above. You can see that the last data point (the red curve), is, literally off the chart.

The folks at NOAA do a great job updating this graph every three months or so. We can now say that the 2014 Earth had more heat (thermal energy) than any year ever recorded by humans. We can also say that the folks at NOAA will likely have to rescale their graph to capture the new numbers. The NOAA site is updated by Dr. Tim Boyer and can be found here. Click on slide 2 to view the relevant image.

If people want to read a review of ocean heating that is written for a general audience, I suggest our recent peer-reviewed paper which can be found here.

So when we look back on 2014 and the records that fell, it gives us some pause about the so-called pause (hat-tip to Dr. Greg Laden for that phrase). Some people tried to tell us global warming had “paused”, that it ended in 1998, or that the past 15 years or so had not seen a change in the energy of the Earth. This ocean warming data is the clearest nail in that coffin. There never was a pause to global warming, there never was a halt, and the folks that tried to tell you there was were, well, I’ll let you decide. For me, the facts speak for themselves.<<

The above was produced by John Abraham
Dr John Abraham is a professor of thermal sciences. He researches in climate monitoring and renewable energy generation for the developing world. His energy development work has extended to Africa, South America and Asia

PF, as the data clearly shows a rise in temperatures, the counter argument has now changed to -
‘Of course there is variation in climate….rises are natural….how do you know this is not just natural variation….’

Which is now what dinosaurs can cling to as they get closer to the edge of that tarpit.

ruby said:

PF, as the data clearly shows a rise in temperatures, the counter argument has now changed to -
‘Of course there is variation in climate….rises are natural….how do you know this is not just natural variation….’

Which is now what dinosaurs can cling to as they get closer to the edge of that tarpit.

Tell the dinosaurs, how do you know this is not a human variation.

ruby said:

PF, as the data clearly shows a rise in temperatures, the counter argument has now changed to -
‘Of course there is variation in climate….rises are natural….how do you know this is not just natural variation….’

Which is now what dinosaurs can cling to as they get closer to the edge of that tarpit.

There’s nothing to get their claws into though.

Cymek said:

ruby said:

those making the money don’t want to admit their actions have long term repercussion for the entire human race.

More like they really don’t care about the long term repercussions for the entire human race. Like my father in law, they probably think it won’t affect them. Short term, it will affect them far less than the average person.

Quite likely as if you are wealthy you have the means to cope

Still wouldn’t stop you complaining about having to.

a lot of crap posted here since i I looked last time .

I’ll again ask a basic question, a science question,a question I would not ask of someone, unlesss they dislayed an arrogance and dismissivness towards me

Ruby; how much warming do you believe we will get from a 2 x co2 scenario & why?

and Rev,,, why have you ignored my posts on water vapor feedback?

I responded to your requests. Coward

The_observer said:

a lot of crap posted here since i I looked last time .

I’ll again ask a basic question, a science question,a question I would not ask of someone, unlesss they dislayed an arrogance and dismissivness towards me

Ruby; how much warming do you believe we will get from a 2 x co2 scenario & why?

and Rev,,, why have you ignored my posts on water vapor feedback?

I responded to your requests. Coward

sorry Rev; coward unscepticle denier

The_observer said:

a lot of crap posted here since i I looked last time .

I’ll again ask a basic question, a science question,a question I would not ask of someone, unlesss they dislayed an arrogance and dismissivness towards me

Ruby; how much warming do you believe we will get from a 2 x co2 scenario & why?

and Rev,,, why have you ignored my posts on water vapor feedback?

I responded to your requests. Coward

Rather than call coward, why can you not display the factoids which can allow you to feel so free as to use such defamatory terms?

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

a lot of crap posted here since i I looked last time .

I’ll again ask a basic question, a science question,a question I would not ask of someone, unlesss they dislayed an arrogance and dismissivness towards me

Ruby; how much warming do you believe we will get from a 2 x co2 scenario & why?

and Rev,,, why have you ignored my posts on water vapor feedback?

I responded to your requests. Coward

Rather than call coward, why can you not display the factoids which can allow you to feel so free as to use such defamatory terms?

water vapor feedback.. stick that factoid where the solar don’t shine barky rough

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

a lot of crap posted here since i I looked last time .

I’ll again ask a basic question,

and Rev,,, why have you ignored my posts

The Daesh need you. They don’t have to brainwash you.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

a lot of crap posted here since i I looked last time .

I’ll again ask a basic question, a science question,a question I would not ask of someone, unlesss they dislayed an arrogance and dismissivness towards me

Ruby; how much warming do you believe we will get from a 2 x co2 scenario & why?

and Rev,,, why have you ignored my posts on water vapor feedback?

I responded to your requests. Coward

Rather than call coward, why can you not display the factoids which can allow you to feel so free as to use such defamatory terms?

water vapor feedback.. stick that factoid where the solar don’t shine barky rough

wipes clean.

wtf do you want of me?

The_observer said:

a lot of crap posted here since i I looked last time .

I’ll again ask a basic question, a science question,a question I would not ask of someone, unlesss they dislayed an arrogance and dismissivness towards me

Ruby; how much warming do you believe we will get from a 2 x co2 scenario & why?

and Rev,,, why have you ignored my posts on water vapor feedback?

I responded to your requests. Coward

Did you read my last post Observer or are you going to ignore it, like you do with any scientifically based reply given by a qualified and practising scientist?

PermeateFree said:

Did you read my last post Observer or are you going to ignore it, like you do with any scientifically based reply given by a qualified and practising scientist?

Ignore? Your ‘scientific reply’ is an article from the ‘Guardian newspaper’ a left leaning paper, & the article itself is written by a green zealot, John Abraham, & is evidently deceptive in so many ways, where to begin? But what to expect from someone who uses terms such as “denialists” & whose income is reliant on the global warming scare – He researches in climate monitoring and renewable energy generation for the developing world. Plenty of opportunity for backhanders there.

But on to his article

He states that 2014 was the hottest year on record, citing only 2 links, both articles from his Guardian, one from himself. Though this in itself would not be proof for any cause, if his statement was true, the most accurate temperature data we have, the satellite temperature data, shows his statement is utterly false!

2014 is clearly NOT the hottest year on record.

Next he wants his readers to believe that the expected heat missing from the atmosphere (the 18 year plus pause) is hiding in the ocean. (I note here the only scientific paper he provided on the subject, a link to, was one where HE was lead author LOL)

His graph for Ocean Heat Content (OHC) is very interesting in itself, & he uses it to justify his claims.

Firstly, forget the data for most of the entirety of the graph & focus on the data from ARGO, which started from around 2003. The data prior to this time is so sparse & unreliable to be dismissed without concern. Is Ocean Heat Content All It’s Stacked Up to Be?

Now, let’s look at the OHC graph Abraham provided in his Guardian article, taken indirectly from NOAA, below

.
.
and now compare it to the graph direct from NOAA

It is plainly clear Abraham has chosen to use a fraudulently altered version of NOAA’s graph where the x & y axis are changed to steepen the incline to make it look more dramatic, & alarming. Skulduggery!

But wait, there’s more.

The OHC graph’s Y axis is in Joules, not in degrees C.

How does OHC look when the Y axis is in degrees C ?

If we look at the time-series graph of the average temperature of the global oceans for the depths of 0-700 and 0-2000
meters one can see that the rates of warming (based on the linear trends) are about 0.03 deg C/decade.

And that does no account for the missing heat

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Did you read my last post Observer or are you going to ignore it, like you do with any scientifically based reply given by a qualified and practising scientist?

Ignore? Your ‘scientific reply’ is an article from the ‘Guardian newspaper’ a left leaning paper, & the article itself is written by a green zealot, John Abraham, & is evidently deceptive in so many ways, where to begin? But what to expect from someone who uses terms such as “denialists” & whose income is reliant on the global warming scare – He researches in climate monitoring and renewable energy generation for the developing world. Plenty of opportunity for backhanders there.

But on to his article

He states that 2014 was the hottest year on record, citing only 2 links, both articles from his Guardian, one from himself. Though this in itself would not be proof for any cause, if his statement was true, the most accurate temperature data we have, the satellite temperature data, shows his statement is utterly false!

2014 is clearly NOT the hottest year on record.

Next he wants his readers to believe that the expected heat missing from the atmosphere (the 18 year plus pause) is hiding in the ocean. (I note here the only scientific paper he provided on the subject, a link to, was one where HE was lead author LOL)

His graph for Ocean Heat Content (OHC) is very interesting in itself, & he uses it to justify his claims.

Firstly, forget the data for most of the entirety of the graph & focus on the data from ARGO, which started from around 2003. The data prior to this time is so sparse & unreliable to be dismissed without concern. Is Ocean Heat Content All It’s Stacked Up to Be?

Now, let’s look at the OHC graph Abraham provided in his Guardian article, taken indirectly from NOAA, below

.
.
and now compare it to the graph direct from NOAA

It is plainly clear Abraham has chosen to use a fraudulently altered version of NOAA’s graph where the x & y axis are changed to steepen the incline to make it look more dramatic, & alarming. Skulduggery!

But wait, there’s more.

The OHC graph’s Y axis is in Joules, not in degrees C.

How does OHC look when the Y axis is in degrees C ?

If we look at the time-series graph of the average temperature of the global oceans for the depths of 0-700 and 0-2000
meters one can see that the rates of warming (based on the linear trends) are about 0.03 deg C/decade.

And that does no account for the missing heat

Why don’t you have a good look at the graphs you have posted you might be surprised to find they show an upward trend. And instead of shooting the messenger check on the research behind it, there is plenty on the net and elsewhere. Unlike you, these people do not make things up, they are not interested in misrepresenting the information, they are just interesting in averting a disaster..

ruby said:

Quite a few years ago now I read articles about climate with computer modelling that showed we should be paying some attention to what mankind is doing with regards to the use of carbon.

So far the figures suggest that we should be definitely doing more than paying attention, we should be acting, and should have acted more vigourously in the past.

The observations suggest that a fair number of old business models need to change. And here lies the real problem.

Ruby, computer models are projections based on hypothesised assumptions with arbitary figures for these assumptions guiding their outputs.

Computer models do not make predictions, & whatever their projections suggest for future climate are meaningless because they are unable to be validated to apply any accuracy.

Their projections cannot be termed “observations” if that is what you were suggesting?

However, we can see at this stage that their accuracy is not looking good.

Why? Because they project scenarios that show over sensitivity to increasing co2.

This graph shows 73 model projections, used by the IPCC; the red line being the model’s average.

The actual measured temperature data, also shown on the graph (green circles are from 4 weather balloon data sets, & the blue squares are the average of the two satellite data sets) show a completely different story, & demonstrate how inaccurate the models, that you seem to based your views on, are.

and this graph shows again how wrong the model projections are.
Although co2 emissions have been greater than Hansen’s scenario A,
actual temperature has been below his scenario C projection -

“scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.”

So Ruby, what matters to you? Model projections or actual data?

What is the zero line on that top graph? It’s showing plus or minus from long term average?

(And I have to say, 1975? I’ve been around longer than that. Pretty short term graph there)

I’ve had a quick look at the latest graphs posted, and done a little bit of reading up about it.
It’s really quite interesting to follow up on the information, and when I have more time I’ll put some of it on here.

If anyone else wants to do a little bit of searching, it’s worth reading up on the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the satellite temperature dataset.