Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > (A)GW Lite

shub

The data show what they show. How this makes me 'ignorant' is a mystery.

May 24, 2012 at 12:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

DNFTT is the only way.

May 24, 2012 at 2:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Asking you to think is not trolling. However, it is clearly a waste of time.

May 24, 2012 at 2:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=2114

'Data' never just shows what is shows, all by itself. You have to interpret it.

The graph in the link above was your mode of interpretation. Exactly the type of thing that reveals your ignorance, which is masked by confident bluster and aggressiveness.

I am still trying to come to grips with you, doing what you do, calling people names about matters concerning graphs.

May 24, 2012 at 2:19 PM | Registered Commentershub

Shub: "It is the 'warmists" who dont like the instrumental record because it shows them rising temperatures. Sceptics like warmth." Very funny :-)

So ignoring Muller himself, do sceptics accept the BEST project, its methods and its results?

"I think it would be better if you address the insinuations of dishonesty that have been thrown at you by me, and RKS."

I'm not with you there. If you'd like to summarise where you think I am dishonest, I will answer you. Just calling me a 'troll' doesn't cut it. RKS descends into personal attacks whenever his arguments fail him and I see no reason to respond.

James, I got carried away with the UHI rant - sorry! But even as a sceptic, you must admit it is somewhat amusing ;-)

May 24, 2012 at 3:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

shub

I'm amazed you posted that. Thank you. But why commit suicide in public? I'm truly baffled.

May 24, 2012 at 3:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Don't tell me WFT drew those trend lines. You keyed them in right?

How can you draw a trend-line going back in time, and then draw another trend line from a more recent point in time, compare the two, and come to a conclusion that there is acceleration?

Do you still believe that doing this is correct?

May 24, 2012 at 3:27 PM | Registered Commentershub

shub

Please re-read our previous exchange. The rate of warming in the second half of the C20th is demonstrably greater than in the first half. It's all there. All you need to do is understand it. I'm not going through the exercise with you again. All I will say is that I find your position incomprehensible.

May 24, 2012 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

I don't think BitBucket is an actual troll, but he does sometmies use language which is... not designed to accommodate inclusive debate, let's say. It's a habit with warmist trolls too, such as Zed and BBD, which is why he's being mis-identified, I believe.

Still, it keeps the fighting off Unthreaded.

May 24, 2012 at 8:19 AM | TheBigYinJames>>>>

Hi James.

I'm giving BH a break for a while until it is no longer being controlled by obvious trolls with eager contributors willing to play their game.

Shame, our discussion was getting quite interesting now you've realized I was describing the philosophy as I saw it, and not personally having a dig at yourself.

May 24, 2012 at 4:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

I dont care for your BS 'facts'. I did not care at that time either. My question to you, is simple and it only concerns methodology:

Do you believe that the method of drawing straight trend-lines, as you did in the graph, is correct?

It is a straightforward question. And it has nothing to do with land, sea, ocean, river temperatures.

The question was clear the last time around as well. Only you, in usual pathetic fashion, dragged out land temperatures to answer for some acceleration.

The question is about methodology and the logic used in drawing inferences with graphs and trend lines.

So, to repeat: Do you believe that the method of drawing straight trend-lines, as you did in the graph, is correct?

May 24, 2012 at 4:45 PM | Registered Commentershub

shub

I dont care for your BS 'facts'.

If you won't look at the data you cannot understand it. If you cannot understand it, you cannot discuss it.

So, to repeat: Do you believe that the method of drawing straight trend-lines, as you did in the graph, is correct?

Comparing land temperature trends for 1910 - 1945 and 1975 - present demonstrates an increased rate of warming. Correctly and indisputably. As I showed in our previous exchange which you were kind enough to link above.

I presume your increasingly shrill misdirections are a belated attempt to cover this up. You should have re-read that conversation before linking to it. But then you never were the sharpest chisel in the box.

May 24, 2012 at 5:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

The question is simple, and it does not concern any specific data series. It concerns the method.

Do you believe that the method of drawing straight trend-lines, as you did in the graph, is correct?

If you don't have your method right, you will draw wrong inferences. The mistake in your inference is perhaps high-school level stuff. Unfortunate, but it cannot be helped.

Since you have never given a straight answer to your question - maybe your ego gets in the way - I'll let it go.

But those who don't have the proper method of drawing inferences from graphs and time-series data should NOT go around calling others names.

May 24, 2012 at 5:36 PM | Registered Commentershub

shub

Fitting linear trends (as you meant to say) is a standard technique. I know why you are kicking up a fuss, and it has nothing to do with employing bog-standard linear fits.

You have seen, I know, that comparing the trends for land surface temperature from 1910 - 1945 and 1975 - present shows that the rate of warming had doubled in the latter period.

This is not 'the wrong inference' from the wrong technique. It is a correct interpretation of the data using a standard and fully appropriate analytical tool.

And you do not like that, do you shub?

May 24, 2012 at 6:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD. Have you spent yourself yet?

May 24, 2012 at 7:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Comparing trends between 1910-1945 and 1975-present is a "correct interpretation of the data using a standard and fully appropriate analytical tool", isn't it?

Then, how come you compared trends between 1900-present, 1950-present and 1957-present?

Is that correct?

You know what name you called people who pointed out it was a wrong thing to do? "Denier".

May 24, 2012 at 8:19 PM | Registered Commentershub

shub

I presume the '1957' is a typo?

IIRC your original claim was that the rate of warming had not increased in the latter half of the C20th. You only later objected to comparing the centennial trend with the 1975 - present trend as a demonstration of this. So, in order to accommodate your objection, I illustrated the increased - indeed doubled - rate of land surface warming as discussed above and per your link.

While I know you'd love to direct all attention to the methodological dispute, what really matters is that you were incorrect to claim that the rate of warming has not increased during the C20th. Especially as it can unequivocally be shown to have doubled.

I think we are running out of road.

May 24, 2012 at 8:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

I made no claim, to begin with. When poor ZBD wanted to discuss energy policy, you disrupted that thread with an original claim of your own.

These were your words:

It's time for a pretty picture.

From everyone's favourite land surface temperature reconstruction... look at the increasing rate of warming since 1900.

BEST 1900 – 2010.2 annual mean; trends 1900 – 2010.2; 1950 – 2010.2; 1975 – 2010.2

Here is the graph, which was created by you to illustrate your point

Do you agree, that if you make a claim, it is your responsibility to substantiate it?

Here is what you said when it was pointed out what you were doing was wrong:

To claim that this graph is misleading demonstrates bias on your part. Denial, even.

Here is what I said:

If you say global warming is accelerating because y>x, you are making a mistake

That is exactly what you did in your graph.

Is that a right thing or a wrong thing to do?

May 24, 2012 at 9:06 PM | Registered Commentershub

BBD, I've got a brand new tub of wet wipes for when you're sated.

May 25, 2012 at 8:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Contrarians on that thread made a fuss because they didn't like a simple (if incomplete) demonstration that the rate of warming has increased. It was a classic example of sceptics clamouring about irrelevancies in order to force the debate away from what really matters. Let's break it down:

1/. Is the claim correct? Yes - the rate of warming increased

2/. Is the analysis complete? No - the trend 1910 - 1940 should have been included and compared with that for the period 1975 - present. BUT the comparison of centennial and late C20th trends provides a simple illustration of what is happening. Only 'sceptics' focus on the incomplete methodology and only for tactical reasons.

3/. Are you still desperately trying to distract from the fact that the rate of warming has demonstrably increased? Yes

So, in the interests of objectivity and fairness, let's complete the exercise. Here's the graph, with a linear trend for 1910 - 1940.

Decadal trends:

1910 - 1940
0.14C

1975 - 2010.2
0.28C

The rate of warming in the most recent period has doubled.

Your ongoing attempts to misdirect this conversation are failing. My only fault was not demonstrating what is generally known and understood rigorously the first time around. And that would only matter if I was wrong.

But I was correct. The evidence is there for all to see. It's undeniable.

May 25, 2012 at 9:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Two wet wipes, perhaps? Catch the blob that went on the carpet?

May 25, 2012 at 10:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

TBYJ

Adult contributions or no contributions please. I don't do nursery classes.

May 25, 2012 at 10:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Taking point differentials (linear treands as you like to call them) of a non linear series always gets you into these sorts of difficulties.

What is the average value of the Sine function?
What is the first differential at points 0, pi/4, pi/2 and pi on that graph?

May 25, 2012 at 10:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Instead of waving your hands around, just demonstrate error. That would be constructive. That is what shub can't do, so let's see you have a crack at it.

May 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Clever. I thought the typo "treands" might have been too much, but I did think you'd get hooked up on "differential". So a troll with ability, bravo! Shame you avoided the Sine wave, though, but it's obvious to see why you avoided it.

I don't want to have a crack at anything. I want you to leave, so the grown-ups can resume talking.

That's the tragedy BBD. You speak a lot of sense, you may even be mostly or entirely correct. But your lack of social skills makes everyone hate you and refuse to have anything to do with you.

May 25, 2012 at 10:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

So you cannot demonstrate error. Surprise, surprise.

May 25, 2012 at 10:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD