Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Where is Rhoda's Evidence? (plagiarised by Dung)

Just when people were starting to consider you as worth talking to you state in Nov 2, 2015 at 12:39 PM | Unregistered Commenter Entropic man that actually we can identify all the main factors
You need to rush to the UN and make sure they understand that you know this since nobody else on the planet can do it, you are unique.
Sadly you are just a troll EM.

Nov 2, 2015 at 1:39 PM | Registered CommenterDung

From the data I do have, I would estimate that doubling the CO2 content as described would increase the redirection through A by 1%.
And the effect of that on temperature would be ....?
You're hypothesising all the way down the line. You really don't have a clue as to the precise figures which means you don't have a clue as to the precise effects.
And my hypothesis is that no-one else does either in the laboratory or in the real world. Doubling CO2 will have the effect of increasing the GAT (which no-one can properly calculate anyway) by ~1.2°C (allegedly) absent any other forcings or feedbacks or the fact that the real world is not a test-tube and that the measured increase in CO2 is more or less linear over the last century (according to the graphs I've seen) and the GAT (which no-one can properly calculate anyway) certainly is anything but.
And if I knocked on your door and tried to sell you this BS you would either kick me down the path or send for the men in white coats.
Which is why both rhoda and I (and others) are saying "show me" because none of this hangs together; it's got more holes in it than a colander. It may be right but if it is why is nobody capable of explaining it in a way that makes sense?
All we get is smoke and mirrors.
Linear trends intended (one is forced to conclude) to hide the lack of correlation, let alone causation.
Assumptions about forcings/feedbacks intended (one is forced to conclude) to produce a desired result.
Unexplained adjustments to temperature data intended (one is forced to conclude) to conceal the fact that nature is refusing to provide that same "desired result".
Where does it end?

Nov 2, 2015 at 1:42 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson


If there were a large unknown forcing Z in operation it would show as a large imbalance in the energy budget.There would be a lot of energy appearing apparently from nowhere or a lot of energy mysteriously disappearing.

Think of a jigsaw. If you want to show that a piece is missing, you need to show that there is a gap into which it might fit. If you want to infer a missing forcing, you need to show a gap in the energy budget to match.

Calling me a troll does not help, it just shows that you have no valid scientific counter argument.

Nov 2, 2015 at 2:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

We must be nearly over this.

CO2 in the atmosphere causes it to be warmer than it would be otherwise.
More CO2 might increase this effect.
In modern era with large CO2 rises, it has warmed a little on average.
Initial evidence for the hypothesis, but with decadal natural fluctuations to cope with, too early to call.

That's as far as science can go at the moment.

What is clear by examining the temperature trend over the only modern known period of increase in CO2 that we have is that the relationship between the two IF ONE EXISTS - is probably not linear and is heavily auto-correlated with this and other climatic phenomenon. Temperature certainly does NOT track the CO2 hockey stick, no matter who Michael Mann attempts to litigate against.

Science can't say definitely yes, sceptics cannot definitely say no. Extremists on both sides attempts to simplify the problem by choosing a yes or no before the evidence is in. Alarmists think it's too risky to wait for the evidence, ignoring the real harm done by misdirecting the finite wealth of the world into wasteful activity. Some on the sceptical side insist that there is nothing to see here at all, which is equally silly. Of course there is something to see, we might be changing the climate, it would be foolish not to keep a weather-eye on it, and spend a little money in researching the what-ifs.

Renewables and clean energy are red-herrings, we need both of those anyway, even if there is no risk of disastrous climate change. The costs associated with accelerating their development ahead of the usual market mechanisms might annoy some people, but we waste far more of our money on absolutely wasteful things, such as aid to dictatorships, foreign wars, and hereditary heads of state.

Just chill out.

Nov 2, 2015 at 3:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Michael hart

IiRC the tree ring proxies began to diverge from the temperature record when acid rain began to damage the trees. Should Michael Mann have continued to use the rings from the damaged trees, knowing that they were no longer a useful proxy?

Nov 2, 2015 at 4:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man


This is the Earth's energy budget. Where is your forcing Z going to fit in?

Nov 2, 2015 at 5:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

About 94% of the incoming energy ends up warming the oceans. The rest is warming the land and the atmosphere or melting ice.
Nov 2, 2015 at 12:39 PM Entropic man

EM - What are you talking about?

About 100% of the incoming energy ends up going out to outer space.

Nov 2, 2015 at 5:23 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Where do cosmic rays fit into the energy budget EM?
What about the new carbon sink discovered a month ago?
What about the fact that 33% of solar IR hits the land?
Where did the energy budget come from?
Did you ever study accountancy? When the accounts do not balance you do not look for one single error because the errors have a sneaky way of almost balancing out.

Nov 2, 2015 at 6:00 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Actually, the early 1960's was the start of the noticeably divergence between proxy-derived temperatures and actual data.
Nov 2, 2015 at 3:22 AM hunter


Years back now, I decided I ought to read up on what this Global Warming stuff was all about. After failing to track down a grown-up account with firm evidence I began to think to myself "This seems to be nothing but a theory"*.

Then I decided to read about the Hockey Stick which at the time - before it had been discredited - was simply everywhere.

I read that the slowly descending 'handle' had been obtained exclusively from proxy data. And the alarmingly quickly rising 'blade' was exclusively historic data.

I could hardly believe it. Suppose that a 1st year student submitted a lab report with a graph where, without explanation, the measurement method was abruptly changed near the end of the experiment. And at that very point, the results changed from a slow decline to a rapid increase. Unless the lab tutor was fast asleep on the job, the student would be given some firm advice to de-do the experiment and re-do the write-up and why such antics were unacceptable.

Yet this piece of crap was being presented as the jewel the crown of global warming science - from Al Gore's movie to the IPCC reports. For a while, I reserved judgement about climate science as a whole but it was then that I began to realise that, not only was CAGW no more than a theory, 'climate science' on the whole is simply not science.

* Or a hypothesis, as EM tells us he insisted his pupils term it.

Nov 2, 2015 at 6:18 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A

Sorry, I should have made myself more clear.

94% of the imbalance of incoming energy over outgoing energy ends up in the oceans.

This ocean heat content is increasing by 3*10^22 Joules/year. This corresponds to an energy imbalance in which outgoing radiation is 0.7W/M^2 less than the incoming radiation.


"Where do cosmic rays fit into the energy budget EM?"

The CERN experiment showed that cosmic rays played a negligible role in the Earth's energy budget.

"What about the new carbon sink discovered a month ago?"

Do you mean isoprene? It plays a role in cloud formation, but has been doing so at the same rate for a long time.It is an interesting new detail, but does not change the energy budget numbers.

"What about the fact that 33% of solar IR hits the land?"

What solar IR? Solar insolation has wavelengths between between 400nm and 700nm in the visible spectrum, not the infra-red
Do you mean downwelling radiation in the IR, radiated by greenhouse gases? Both insolation and DWR raise the temperature of the surface. The energy is reradiated as IR or transferred by convection to the atmosphere. Some eventually transfers from the atmosphere into the oceans,

"Where did the energy budget come from?"

Parts of it have beem n measured since the IGY in 1957. I think the first published version was Kevin Trenberth's in the 1990s.

"Did you ever study accountancy? When the accounts do not balance you do not look for one single error because the errors have a sneaky way of almost balancing out."

Are we talking about large amounts, or the odd typig error?

Nov 2, 2015 at 6:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Martin A

Did you refuse to carry over your maintainance records every time you bought a better ammeter?

Nov 2, 2015 at 7:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

What on earth are you on about EM? The only ammeters I have ever bought have been for installing in old cars with no relevance to their maintenance records.

However, making a blind guess as to what you have in mind, it seems to be an endemic disease in "climate science" to graft recent temperature measurements (with high temporal resolution) onto proxy reconstructions (with temporal resolution measured in millennia) and immediately to declare a hockey stick*.

A recent example was Marcott and Shakun whose hockey stick was admitted by them to be "not robust" (ie bollocks), but only after hitting the headlines, including the Met Office, as showing unprecedented rate of warming. 11,300-Year Climate Record Highlights Recent Warming Pulse

Why do believers attempt to justify such rubbish, as you seem to be doing here? Or at best, say nothing about it, as if it didn't bring the whole subject into being open to ridicule.


[added later]:

* I feel sure you understand that if the recent temporal data were smoothed to have the same resolution as the data derived from proxies, the spike that appears in recent times in the results of such work would not be there. Grafting hi-res data onto lo-res data and declaring an unprecedented spike is lying wrapped up to appear as science.

Nov 2, 2015 at 8:50 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

BigYin - whilst I share your views on the state of the scientific knowledge, I'm not sure I feel so sanguine about the creation of a global fiat carbon currency.

Nov 2, 2015 at 11:21 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Martin A

Maybe I misunderstand your technical background. Engineers I have known, responsible for electrical equipment, routinely logged values such as working voltage and current, plus parameters such as the resistance of rotor windings. Trends or sudden changes in these parameters gave early warning of problems

By your philosophy, any change in instrumentation would make any such record meaningless.

I flew model aircraft with a retired chemical engineer from the Dupont works outside Londonderry.

When he started temperature measurements were made using a mixture of alcohol and mercury thermometers and bimetallic strips. To read the temperature on top of a reaction vessel you climbed on top of it a couple of times each day. Accuracies varied from +/-1C to +/-10C.

By the time he retired, the temperature measuring system had been upgraded repeatedly and finally consisted of thermocouples feeding continuous data to a computer database in the control room.

The reaction vessels were subject to a fatigue life, calculated on the basis of the size and number of temperature cycles. The engineers were quite happy to use the whole temperature record, despite the variation in instruments and accuracies.

I feel the same about proxies. They are not as accurate as the modern record, but not so inaccurate as to be completely incompatible. Where they do overlap, such as at Law Dome and pre-1960 tree rings, you get a useful opportunity for calibration. You can also tell when problems like acid rain make them unreliable.

You should reread Marcott et al, rather than relying on third hand sources. They used up to 70 proxies for some temperature determinations. They regarded their 20th century temperatures as less reliable because fewer proxies were available. The reduced sample size made their confidence limits larger.

Nov 3, 2015 at 12:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Where they do overlap (...) you get a useful opportunity for calibration.


But instead of admitting that the 'useful opportunity' revealed a problem, they covered it up with 'hide the decline' without even mentioning it. "Mike's Nature trick".

You should reread Marcott et al, rather than relying on third hand sources. They used up to 70 proxies for some temperature determinations. They regarded their 20th century temperatures as less reliable because fewer proxies were available. The reduced sample size made their confidence limits larger.

EM - do you really not get it? That was Shakun himself in the video (I assume you did not watch it). Stating that that a high temporal resolution spike grafted on to a low temporal resolution proxy reconstruction shows unprecedented warming is deception. They are liars. After one lie, all they say can and should be disregarded.

Nov 3, 2015 at 9:23 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

not banned yet,

speculators always lose money on fiat investments which are not backed by a physical asset. A carbon scheme depends on the widespread belief that carbon emissions are a bad thing, and meanwhile, this belief is being eroded by the reality of the climate, which if we are correct will continue to be non-cooperative with the alarmists. If investors still want to lose their shirts on this Ponzi then that's their lookout, I'll be making sure my portfolio stays well clear.

People always waste and lose money, from hedges, pension investment funds to politicians, I'm past believing that we can do anything much about it other than complain and ridicule them. A free market needs losers as well as winners, and I'd rather those who are fuelling the panic be the losers.

Nov 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Martin A What really intrigues me is that the low resolution datatill showed warming to the mid 20th cutoff point. With both the proxy data and the instrument data showing similar temperatures up to 1950hy are you saying that the record is right and the proxies are wrong?

If they give similar results, surely they are both right or both wrong?

Nov 3, 2015 at 4:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

He's saying the methodology is bad and whether the result is right or wrong or any combination doesn't matter, no conclusions should be drawn.

Nov 3, 2015 at 6:05 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

Rhoda, Martin A

I am still having trouble with your assertion that one cannot build up a long term temperature record using shorter term record with different confidence limits.

Was my Dupont engineer wrong to rely on a 49 year temperature record whose most recent measurements used sensors 1000 times more accurate than the earliest ones?

Of course not. Given proper attention to calibration when one changes sensors and an awareness of different confidence limits it is a valid and useful record.

Climate records are similar with proper attention to calibration and cofidenc limits one can build up a long term climate record in the same way as the Dupont record.

I realise that neither of you know much statistics. Perhaps you could link me to a proper statistical explanation of your position?

Dung wanted a discussion based on evidence, facts and numbers. So far they have all come from me. Despite repeated requests, you seem to have very little quantitative evidence for the "sceptic" position. My assumption it that it is because your "scepticism" is a political position, not a scientific one.

Nov 3, 2015 at 11:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

The problem occurs when you put all the datasets on a graph in a deceptive way intended to shore up a position which, true or not, cannot be proven or disproven given the way the data is treated. That is to use inappropriate smoothings. Which Martin understands. Which a Texas housewife understands. And which EM will not understand.

Nov 4, 2015 at 12:20 AM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda


"Inappoprat smoothing?

In what was are they inapproprate.? Give me numbers.

I can overlay the Mann et al data, the Marcott et al data, the CET data, the Vostok data and others. Each has different confidence limits and temporal resolution. Put together they validate a long term temperature curve similar to Marcott et al.

You may not like the shape, but all you can produce against it is nitpicking. If you have good evidence for an alternative Holocene temperature pattern, now's your time

Nov 4, 2015 at 9:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM - If you don't get it, I don't think there is much more I can say to help you.

Grafting a short piece of high time-resolution time series on to the end of a long record with low time-resolution and then claiming that the composite time series shows rapid changes in the grafted part that do not occur in the low resolution part is a form of deception. It will fool people who do not appreciate the significance (or the fact)
of the different resolutions. Do you fall in that category?

I realise that neither of you know much statistics.

Er, yes, by comparison with a secondary school biology teacher who once said that he had taken "statistics 101" probably you are correct.

All the same, amongst other things I have done, my smattering of probability theory and statistics proved just sufficient for me to get by for a number of years at Bell Labs, Holmdel, doing research on stochastic modelling of networks and the statistical dynamics of operating systems in computer controlled telephone exchanges.

Nov 4, 2015 at 6:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A


Nov 5, 2015 at 9:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Martin A

I have been looking for other grafted time series.

The Colorado sea level data has combined tide guage data with three successive satellite sensors.

Similarly there is extended time series data for CO2 from multiple sources.

Together with the temperature data that is three grafted series accepted in the literature of climate alone.

There are also many software tools for the grafting of time series databases in other fields.

One way or another this grafting would appear to be standard practice. I suspect that Rhoda and yourself have been suckered by a straw man.

Nov 5, 2015 at 9:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM - as I said, you have not grasped what we are saying. We are not saying you can't graft time series together, even when their temporal resolutions or their signal-to-noise ratios differ greatly.

What we *are* saying is that, if you are interested in events that can only be revealed by *one* of two sections grafted together (because of its greater bandwith for example) then it is dishonest to claim that such events did not occur in the period covered by the other section merely because that section reveals no trace of such events.

Nov 5, 2015 at 11:30 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A