The Holocene Deniers

[Frank Lovell]

I, like you, do not know to what degree we are affecting the global climate. Climatologists themselves seem to be unsure beyond saying it is significant.

that being the case I believe we should attempt to modify our behaviour, the worst that can happen if we do is that we retard growth in GDP in the developed world by a few percentage points over the coming decades, and even if AGW turns out to have been pie in the sky we will have readied ourselves for something that will happen - the end of fossil fuels.

The flip side of that coin is that we do nothing and AGW turns out to be as bad as the worst predictions. That will lead to a break down in modern human society, it will lead to widespread migration and starvation and no country - not even the mighty USA - will be immune, human progress will be retarded and even reversed .

To me it is a no-brainer, the penalties if we over react are miniscule compared to the penalties if we under react, in fact if we over react we will husband a finite source and drive the movement to future power sources that will be necessary within decades anyway, so some might say it is a positive.

I say this as an oil man with a lot to lose personally from a huge reaction against fossil fuels, but science is science, I can't see how any scientist can see past a consensus of experts, to do so is massive hubris, people who do are nearly all, as I have said, driven by political rather than scientific disagreement with AGW and that, frankly, makes me angry ( which probably comes across ) and quite disgusted.

Mr Morton should try his luck on sites ( and he probably does ) where there aren't scientists trained in statistics who can sink his arguments so easily as Thaumaturgy has done here.

It is quite obvious that one man is dealing in statistically based science and one man is dealing in bluster, hand waving and obfuscation.

I guess I need to remind you that I am (as you earlier noted) just a low-down Republican, hopelessly beyond the reach of mere reason and motivated solely political lust. So thanks for your thoughts above, Mr. "Baggins," but I have no more interest in what you have to say to me than you have for what I might have to say to you.

-- Frank

 

[grmorton]

Then you are clearly manipulating the data.

In the daily data there should be more than 20,000 data points. Your graph only has about 100.

I averaged the months and plotted them. Below is the data for 1989 to 2000 for Okemah and Okmulgee.

And here it is for Brookhaven City

YOu can clearly see devation at the colder temperatures in both plots.

This is the first time I have ever used anything but the daily data.

Well, then you could at least admit that THAT statistical analysis was crap.

Glenn, that is what I have done repeatedly. THIS WAS THE FIRST AND ONLY TIME SO FAR I HAVE USED MONTHLY DATA.

Riiiiight.

 

[grmorton]

Who's clipping data?

Glenn, I plotted the daily data Okmulgee vs Okemah and here it is COMPARED TO YOUR GRAPH :

Now you tell me how this compares with your plot. When one plots daily data as you claim to have, one ends up with nearly 30,000 data points on the graph. NOT 100 or so.

Also, note the slope of the line is 0.98. See that teeny red line? That's the 95% confidence interval on the fit of the line.

I am still quite curious of how you processed, filtered or clipped your data such that you wound up with only about 100 data points on your graph of DAILY temperatures when, in reality, there's 30,681 individual data points in the data set.

Interesting.

Your own graph shows exactly what I have been saying. Look at the width of the scatter gram!!! Look at it instead of just claiming victory. Notice that at 40 degrees in Okemah, the scatter in Okmulgee's temperature goes from 15 deg F to over 50 deg F. Now you claim that we can measure temperature quite accurately but your chart says we can't.

WHen Okmulgee reads 40 degrees the town just 20 miles away can read anywhere from 22 to 70 degrees. Since these two towns should read almost the same it is clear that the ability of the climatologists to actually measure a repeated temperature is pure crap.

Only someone ideologically commited to believing the climatologists could look at this chart and think that it speaks well of our ability to measure temperture.

Everyone. Look at one temperature in either town and then look at the scatter in temperatures measured in the other town.

Thank you Thau, for actually making my case.

 

[Frank Lovell]

Then you've seen me say ad nauseam that I could be mistaken and that I would welcome a valid correction.

It has been explicitly stated numerous times on this thread alone. Not to mention the numerous times in all my posts.

But further you'll note I'm one of the few people who obsessively provides supporting citations for my points in full knowledge that I could be wrong.


If you asked rhetorically if any of us here accept our own fallibility you got your answer...

Didn't I acknowledge that answer and say that I liked your answer???

...I have not read it yet....

I hope you will read it (that will save me from having to re-articulate Drallos' wheel, and you will then have a better idea of the reasons why I am presently skeptical of the politicized claims of AGW).

...Regardless of following or preceeding there is a possible feedback loop that can go both ways. But in point of fact if something is capable of inducing global warming (which we established just a few sentences ago) and we are responsible for a major up-tick in pumping it into the atmosphere at historic levels, then I think it is reasonable to assume that we can and might have an impact....

Didn't I acknowledge that human CO2 emissions can "have an impact" (exert an influence, one among many) on climate change???

...No, in that increased temperatures may be able to cause the release of CO2 does not mean that increased CO2 cannot cause increased temperatures. That is a logical fallacy.

Didn't I acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and exerts an influence (one among many) on global warming???

...Indeed they are complex. That means that if we get it wrong we might end up screwing something up colossally...

Yes, that is one of the points I have tried to make -- THANK YOU for seeing at least THAT point!

...No one is arguing that the earth has never had a different climate or climate isn't variable...

Good -- that probably explains why I have nowhere complained that anyone anywhere has argued that Earth's global climate was never warmer or that climate never varies naturally.

...The key is that current climate is possibly impacted by our activities. If we don't moderate our impact we might be responsible for events that will harm us in some way.

IF the present highly politicized claims of AGW were simply "that current climate is possibly impacted by our activities," and that "If we don't moderate our impact we might be responsible for events that will harm us in some way," THEN I'd likely not presently be a skeptic of the present claims of AGW!

...As a libertarian do you waste things at an alarming rate? Do you burn parts of your home down simply because you can and no one can tell you otherwise?...

What??? Why do you lay a question like THAT on ME???

...I will read his essay. However, I am growing quite tired of being told what I need to do by others...

Where have I told you that you "NEED to do" ANYthing?

I've ASKED you (and everyone who might be interested) to read it. If you don't want to read it, fine (I suspect that you are not alone in that).

...What are you reading on the other side?

I read everything that is recommended to me on this subject. Everything! Why do you ask?


My goodness -- clearly this isn't working, instead of a discussion what we're having is a failure to communicate. I'll take the whole blame for that, I had unreasonable expectations and to make matters worse I obviously can't express myself worth a squat. I am sorry to have even tried.

-- Frank

PS to Glenn: How can you STAND it here, Glenn???

 

[grmorton]

My name is William Bailey I am a chief geophysicist for one of the leading geophysical exploration companies in the world. I have a degree in geology from Edinburgh University a masters in geology from UCL and 20 years experience in the oil exploration business including stints with GSI ( briefly), HGS and Western Geophysical.

I live in the UK and work offshore.

If you work offshore you are not chief geophysicist for the company. That I am sure of. You might be chief on the boat, but not for the company.

I have a very good reason to deny global warming - I work in the oil industry - and a very good reason not to deny global warming - I am not a hypocrite who would sell out my scientific training for personal reasons - guess which path I choose?

I have a better reason than that. I think the data doesn't support global warming. I used to think it did, but after looking at it, it doesn't. Look at the spread of temperatures in Thau's graph of daily temperature. Clearly there is a problem.

Drallos has no training in climatology therefore I couldn't really give a stuff what he thinks about it and the fact that he is obviously very right wing just confirms my idea that he is, like Mr Morton, rejecting science for political reasons.

You should be aware that physics is the study of energy, power and force, all of which play an important role in the weather.

There is a lot of physics in meteorology, I know that, I , unlike you and Mr Morton, actually studied meteorology at University for a year ( I took the first year Meteorology course at Edinburgh University as part of my Geology degree ). But I, unlike you and Mr Morton, don't have the intellectual hubris to assume that this allows me to naysay climatological experts in their fields.

No, you are one of those sheeple people that won't think critically about anything your betters tell you to think.

The fact that you are all right wingers just confirms that you reject science for political reasons, you are no diffrent to YECs as far as I can see.

As far as I can see, Mr. Bailey, I am the one actually posting data. You are merely posting your beliefs. Which do you think is more in the nature of being scientific--your opinion or data?

Well I have no respect for you and your ilk who would reject science for political reasons, but I still think you can think what you like as long as you don't mind being ridiculed for it.

Not looking for your respect. I am looking for you to examine the data.

Have you any good reason for thinking I should take the word of a plasma physicist and software developer over that of trained climatologists?

Yea, if his data supports his position, then you should either show that his data is wrong, or accept his reasoning. As it is, you merely won't doubt what the climatological priests tell you, Mr. Bailey. In what way are you different from the YECs who believe what their preachers tell them and also don't doubt what they are told?

Seems to me, that I am the one who is doubting what I am told, which neither you nor the YECs do.

I think I do have the duty to point out that people who reject the science have absolutely zero training in the discipline they reject and do so for political rather than scientific reasons.

I have absolutely no respect at all for people like you and Mr Morton and Drallos, you have sold any scientific integrity you may ever of had to your politics, good luck with that.

As I said, I am not looking for respect from you. I am looking for you to deal with the data rather than always spouting off about how you disrespect me.

YOu know, Mr. Bailey. Whether or not I am worthy of respect or not does not change one bit of the data. The data still sits out there and is ignored by you.

 

[Frank Lovell]

Just glanced over doctor Drallo's essay. It's not a peer-reviewed paper and it presents faulty information. For example, Drallos asserts that the earth has been cooling if we look at a 2000 year time scale. That's patently false, as evidenced by the famous hockey-stick graph which I have presented earlier, and here once again:

[Me being a Newby, the System would not let that image appear even as a quote in my post! -FL]

Ah well, that settles it -- trash the entire Drallos essay then (f'cryin' inna two-tone bucket)!

-- Frank

 

[grmorton]

To sum up this to a question that can be answered, I have gone with this one: Why are you guys so mean to each other?

The answer to that question is quite simple, but there are several factors:

1. There are two main reasons for people to reject AGW: Ignorance and politics. There is a consensus among climatologists that AGW is very real (this is not a matter of opinion, but fact). Climatologists are the ones most qualified to establish if AGW is real or not, and their verdict is in. That leaves people to accept or reject established science. Rejecting science is done by ignorant people and people with a political agenda.

2. As AGW is real (according to the consensus among those most qualified to say so), .

I love this Thistlethorn. Geology took your position years ago toward the man who postulated continental drift. Alfred Wegener was told exactly what you say--that he was not qualified to doubt the geological 'experts' who all knew, and indeed had a consensus that continental drift was false. They treated him very very badly.

"Few scientists other than the German-speaking scholars of his own country paid much heed to Wegener during the seven years that elapsed between the publication of the first edition of The Origin of Continents and Oceans in 1915 and the appearance of the third edition in 1922. But with the translation of the third edition into English, French, Swedish, Spanish and Russian, his ideas were put into international circulation. And when scientists the world over perceived the challenge to the fundamental principles of the earth sciences implicit in Wegener's bold theory, they were quick to respond; many of them turned on the German meteorologist with savage fury."

"Members of England's Royal Geographical Society took the subject of continental drift under consideration at a January 1923 meeting in London. While they generally agreed that the theory offered convenient explanations of much that was still puzzling about the earth, they completely rejected it. One geologist pointed out that the contracting-earth theory was so universally accepted that no one who "valued his reputation for scientific sanity" would dare advocate an extraordinary theory like continental drift. Another described Wegener's views as "vulnerable in almost every statement."

"A geologist named Philip Lake delivered the most blistering attack, not only on the theory as such, but on its author. "Wegener is not seeking the truth," said Lake, "he is advocating a cause and is blind to every fact and argument that tells against it." He accused the German scientist of stretching, contorting and twisting the continents in a misbegotten effort to fit them together. "It is easy to fit the pieces of a puzzle together if you distort their shapes," Lake sneered, "but when you have done so your success is no proof that you have placed them in their original positions. It is not even proof that the pieces belong to the same puzzle, or that all the pieces are present." An even swifter and more summary indictment awaited Wegener in America, where the president of the prestigious American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia pronounced the idea of continental drift to be "utter, damned, rot!"

"Wegener received a further mauling in 1924, when the British astronomer and geophysicist Harold Jeffreys published a treatise titled The Earth, Its Origins, History and Physical Constitution. In a few sentences Jeffreys contemptuously dismissed the geological and biological evidence advanced by Wegener and proceeded to attack the theory at its weakest point-its reliance on global rotation and gravitational pull for the driving energy of continental drift. With a few simple calculations, he demonstrated that the crust of the earth was far too strong to be affected by those forces. He also pointed out, with devastating effect, that a gravitational attraction strong enough to shift continents would also stop the rotation of the earth in less than a year. He asserted categorically that there", as force capable of moving continents; if the force did not exist, he arg then continents did not move. In sum, he wrote, Wegener's idea was an impossible hypothesis."

"Such attacks took their toll on Wegener's career. One companion of that time recalled the "depressing" days when Wegener "had to argue with his opponents or even defend himself against apparent misunderstandings." Despite his undisputed talents as a teacher, and the continuing loyalty of his close associates, Wegener remained a mere lecturer and was unable to obtain a professorship in a German university. "One heard time and again a colleague remembered, "that he had been turned down for a certain chair because he was interested in matters that lay outside its terms of reference.' Wegener never recorded his feelings about being thus rejected, but in 1924 he left Germany for the University of Graz in Austria, where a sympathetic administration created a chair of meteorology and geophysics especially for him. There, he was able to combine orthodox meteorological pursuits with further delving into his theory of continental drift. He also found his new associates a good deal more responsive to his ideas.

"Despite their general rejection of the theory of continental drift, scientists somehow could not quite lay it to rest. In November of 1928, Wegener was invited to New York to attend an international symposium sponsored by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. He eagerly accepted the chance to explain his views, only to find that the few support raised at the meeting were quickly drowned out by a chorus of hostile dissenters, who criticized not only his hypothesis but his scientific credentials as well. One after another, delegates to the symposium stood up to express, with crushing sarcasm, grave doubts about the possibility of continental drift. Some barely troubled to justify their rejection of the hypothesis; others demonstrated errors of detail and used them to discredit the whole theory; a few seemed unable to restrain their anger that the idea was being seriously considered at all."

"Professor Rollin T. Chamberlin of the University of Chicago attacked Wegener's geological evidence on 18 separate counts, claiming it ranged from unlikely to ludicrous. "Wegener's hypothesis in general,' he said, 'is of the footloose type, in that it takes considerable liberty with our globe and is less bound by restrictions or tied down by awkward , ugly facts than most of its rival theories."

"A professor of paleontology at Yale University, Charles Schuchert, provoked much hilarity by displaying pictures of a globe on which he had elaborately tried, and spectacularly failed, to fit together obviously incongruent coastlines such as those of North and South America. He also pointed out that erosion would have substantially altered the shape of the coastlines over long periods of time, yet Wegener was suggesting, by matching Africa and South America, that the fracture line had retained its shape for 120 million years. "Is there a geologist anywhere," asked Schuchert, "who will subscribe to this startling assumption?"

"Professor Bailey Willis of Stanford University picked up on the same theme, charging that Wegener's supposed fit of the continental coastlines was illusory. If continents were drifting through a layer of the earth's crust, said Willis, the stresses of the movement would utterly destroy the original configurations; the apparent fit of Africa and South America could therefore be nothing more than coincidence. William Bowie of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey used the nagging question of the driving force as the basis for his attack. If the continents were being propelled toward the Equator by some mysterious force, as Wegener had suggested, then how, Bowie asked, could four of the seven continents remain concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere, three of those on one side of the earth? Of a total of 14 speakers, hardly anyone had a favorable word for the idea of continental drift. One scientist who wrote about the symposium may unintentionally have accounted for much of the animosity when he complained, "If we are to believe Wegener's hypothesis, we must forget everything which has been learned in the last 70 years and start all over again."

"Wegener himself spoke only briefly and said little in his own defense. Perhaps he had heard too many attacks to know where to start defending himself; perhaps he was so serenely convinced of the validity of his hypothesis that he saw nothing to be gained by arguing about details. Whatever the reason, he listened intently but silently throughout the symposium, smoking his pipe, to all appearances unmoved by the barrage of criticism.

"On his return to Germany he went right ahead with a fourth and final edition of The Origin of Continents and Oceans, although this time he acknowledged the difficulties of trying to answer his critics. "Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only be reached by combining all this evidence," he wrote. "We are like a judge confronted by a defendant who declines to answer, and we must determine the truth from circumstantial evidence. All the proofs we can muster have the deceptive character of this type of evidence. How would we assess a judge who based his decision on part of the available data only?"

"It is only by combining the information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to determine 'truth' here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore has the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw."
Russell Miller, Continents in Collision, (Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1983),p.49-52

Yes, meteorologists shouldn't be commenting on Geology and you now claim that geoscientists can't comment on meteorology. Times never change. Shout down the dissenter. Stop him from talking about the data.

Wegener's story is why I will always listen to outsiders who think they have a point. Too bad for you though. You would have been one of those telling WEgener to sit down, shut up and listen to the consensus. Wouldn't you Thistlethorn??

So you contend that no one outside of a field can ever question those inside a field? Is that right?

Do you ever question what your doctor is about to do to you?

 

[grmorton]

3. As for this particular thread, and the person of Glen Morton, he's a very unlikeable person. .

I missed this. Thistle. Yes, I see, likeablity is most assuredly a criterion of truth. No one who is unlikeable can possibly say something true. Is that your contention?

If so, I find it illogical. Whether or not I am likeable or unlikeable (and even my mother didn't like me), that is totally irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the data I have presented. You can hate me but you seem not to actually deal with the data I present. I for one find this curious and instructive of your knowledge of the area.

 

[grmorton]

Now I admit that I haven't read every post, or checked every citation in this thread.

What I have seen, however, and not just from this thread, is that climate change has been supported by evidence from numerous sources, and is accepted by a vast majority of climatologists.

I have also noted that GLMorton focuses on one set of data, a problematic temperature difference between two locations, and ignores things like, tree rings, ice cores, vanishing sea ice, melting permafrost, methane release, de-forestation, changing albedo, positive feedback loops, shifting ecosystems, and reason.

I think I have posted more than on just 2 locations. And even should that be true, you can go see lots of closely spaced towns discussed on my blog. I recall posting on China, Columbus/Seymore Indiana, Coldwater/Ashland KS. Okemah/Okmulgee, Brookhaven City/Monticello MS and maybe some others.

Gracchus, you seem not to have read the opening post. 5000 years ago, Antarctic ice shelves were 80+ km further south, having been melted (and there were no automobiles at that time). I also discussed the changing albedo. It is enough to have caused all the warming we have seen in the last century. Do a search on Albedo and me and you should find it, assuming that the search function here works.

I also pointed out in the opening post that 5000 years ago trees lived along the arctic coast. There was no surficial permafrost. it was all melted at that time, and the world somehow survived it. Sea levels were 2 meters higher 5000 years ago. The Alps and southern Norway were devoid of glaciers 5000 years ago. I keep wondering why no one listens to geology.

To use Thistlethorn's illogic, one should only believe those who are experts in an area. I am an expert in geologic history making my living in that area, making maps and paleotopographic maps, paleosedimentological maps, paleodepositional system maps etc etc. So, by Thistlethorn's logic, you have no right to doubt the consensus of geologists about what happened in the Holocene climatic optimum.

But then, I don't believe in Thisltethorn's illogic. If you want to question me that is fine. I have learned lots of things from YECs who have questioned me. But if you do, please bring some data, not your opinion.

He says warming has happened in the past, but fails to see that the speed of the change and its magnitude are cause for concern. There is going to be a significant, even a huge impact on human civilization.

Now, I have cited the 2 meter rise in sea level in a period of 50 years which happened during the Eemian interglacial about 125,000 years ago.

By measuring the decay of thorium in the reefs, the researchers estimated their age at roughly 121,000 years old—from a period in the Pleistocene epoch known as the Eemian interglacial, which saw average temperatures that were roughly 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) warmer, higher sea levels, and less ice than today.

The buried reefs revealed that sea level rises of as much as two inches (five centimeters) per year resulted in at least a 6.6 foot (two meter) jump in as little as 50 years, based on a series of reefs retreating closer to a receding shore over time.
Ancient Corals May Provide Record of Rapid Sea Level Rise: Scientific American

But, apparently you missed this. If this is an example of a natural variation in sea level, how can we be sure that we aren't in another one of those times? If this is a natural variation, then trying to stop this from happening again because we humans are somehow responsible for bringing about something that nature brought about 120,000 years ago, makes me think of King Canute's apochryphal story.

Sometimes, you just have to step back and look at the big picture.

It is actually more important to actually look at the data.

Because, of course, the problem goes beyond the greenhouse effect. The oceans are polluted, dying, and the fisheries are seriously depleted. The human species has initiated an ecological disaster, but Mr. Morton is far up "de longes river in Africa".

Actually I am in Houston. And I don't see you actually posting data. Stating your belief is fine but looking at data is better.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Your own graph shows exactly what I have been saying. Look at the width of the scatter gram!!! Look at it instead of just claiming victory

Glenn, this is very important: what data were YOU graphing?

You claim to graph daily data but your scatter plot had only 100 data points on it. There are over 30,000 data points in the daily set.

This is key. If you are manipulating or removing data you need to let me know what you are doing.

Only someone ideologically commited to believing the climatologists could look at this chart and think that it speaks well of our ability to measure temperture.

You need to explain why YOUR "DAILY DATA SET" has only 0.3% of all the data.

You really need to explain this.

Thank you Thau, for actually making my case.

Just tell me how your graph shows only 100 data points when the DAILY DATA SET HAS IN EXCESS OF 30,000 data points.

If you are clipping data, is that why YOU got a slope of about 0.8 while I got a slope very close to 1? If you are averaging data how could you averages wind up with such extreme values? If you are manipulating or filtering the data it was not clear.

I really think this needs to be clarified.

You spent a lot of time taking me to task for shortening some scales, it looks to me like you have eliminated 99.7% of all the data in the data set.

I will keep asking this question until you answer it, Glenn.

30,000>>100

 

[Baggins]

I guess I need to remind you that I am (as you earlier noted) just a low-down Republican, hopelessly beyond the reach of mere reason and motivated solely political lust. So thanks for your thoughts above, Mr. "Baggins," but I have no more interest in what you have to say to me than you have for what I might have to say to you.

-- Frank

There are people on the left who reject AGW for political reasons as well, but they are more usually rightwingers like you, Morton and Drallos.

It appears to me that the right is intellectually moribund if it can't formulate ideas to tackle the greatest problem facing mankind. If its only apparent policy is to attack the science from a position of ignorance then it is beyond useless and becoming dangerous.

Intellectual hubris, dishonesty and political opportunism; a nasty mixture

 

[Baggins]

If you work offshore you are not chief geophysicist for the company. That I am sure of. You might be chief on the boat, but not for the company.

Mr Morton you surely do get off on talking about things you know nothing about don't you?

First meteorology and now my job title.

I do work offshore and my job title is Chief Geophysicist, that is what is written on my contract.

I am the lead geophysicist on my boat and my company job title is as I stated.

I have a better reason than that. I think the data doesn't support global warming. I used to think it did, but after looking at it, it doesn't. Look at the spread of temperatures in Thau's graph of daily temperature. Clearly there is a problem.

People better trained in climatology disagree with you, as you obviously, as Thaumaturgy has shown, have little idea how this data is handled at even the most basic level I think it would be prudent of me to take the word of the experts in their field over that of a right wing oil man, and I would suggest everyone else does the same.

Checking the evidence out for ones self if one if capable is fine but you obviously don't understand the evidence and have such a healthy self regard for your own intellect that you cannot see this.

I am always astonished at the intellectual hubris it requires for an outsider to tell a whole separate field of scientific endevour that they are wrong, it is a strange and scarey thing to observe.

You should be aware that physics is the study of energy, power and force, all of which play an important role in the weather.

I am, I am also well aware that plasma Physics and being a CEO of a software company have nothing to do with climatology, and that the vast majority of the world's climatologists and meteorologists are in consensus on this matter. I don't have the intellectual hubris to declare them all wrong because the proposed solutions to the problem bend my politics out of shape.

No, you are one of those sheeple people that won't think critically about anything your betters tell you to think.

I don't think climatologists are my betters. I don't think anyone is my better really I am pretty arrogant. Climatologists just know what they are talking about when it comes to AGW unlike you , me and Mr Drallos.

I would expect a climatologist to accept my explanation of plate tectonics or seismology and I return that professional courtesy, you are unable to do that because of your politics.

As far as I can see, Mr. Bailey, I am the one actually posting data.

You are also the one unable to understand the data you are posting and making erroneous conclusions from it as Thaumaturgy has so ably demonstrated.

I have no interest in posting data, I am interested in the real reasons that you cannot accept AGW, they have nothing to do with data and everything to do with your politics.

You are merely posting your beliefs.

I'm not even doing that really beyond a belief that science works and it is best left to experts in their field to guide policy based on science.

Which do you think is more in the nature of being scientific--your opinion or data?

I'm not trying to be scientific I am pointing out the real reasons you can't accept AGW. It has nothing to do with the differences between two temperature measuring stations in Buttkick Idaho that you can't make statistically significant anyway and everything to do with your politics.

Not looking for your respect. I am looking for you to examine the data.

Thaumaturgy is doing a perfectly good job of taking your inadequate statistical knowledge to the cleaners on that one and I will leave it to him, he is obviously a far more astute statistician than either one of us.

Yea, if his data supports his position, then you should either show that his data is wrong, or accept his reasoning.

I will wait for the gasps of admiration from the Meteorology community when they realise they were wrong all along and a man with a political axe to grind has trumped them all ta very much.

As it is, you merely won't doubt what the climatological priests tell you,

So climatologists are priests now not scientists. That says a lot about where you are coming from politically, very interesting.

I have little time for anyone who would denigrate honest scientists as priests because his politics can' deal with their science, very poor show.

Mr. Bailey. In what way are you different from the YECs who believe what their preachers tell them and also don't doubt what they are told?

In the way that science isn't religion.

Seems to me, that I am the one who is doubting what I am told, which neither you nor the YECs do.

You are doubting alright but you have neither the educational nor intellectual tools to back up your doubts. In that case the wisest thing to do is accept the work of scientists better trained and more intelligent than you.

Do you believe that the vast majority of meteorologists are wrong and you and a few other right wing axe grinders are correct, or do you believe it is all a vast conspiracy?

Who is acting like a YEC now?

Some people have such an awful lot emotionally invested in their own intellectual superiority that they find this impossible to do.

When Astro-physicists tell me about black holes I don't disbelieve them until I can work the proof out for myself, I am not intellectually capable of working out proof for black holes. I accept that as they are producing open, peer reviewed science that what they say is correct.

I treat meteorologists talking about AGW in exactly the same way. I assume that you are also incapable of demonstrating the existence of black holes from first principles but you also accept that the open. peer reviewed science is correct on this matter.

You do not, as I do, extend that courtesy to meteorologists. The reason you don't has nothing to do with science and everything to do with your politics. You aren't politically threatened by black holes so you accept the word of Astro-physicists on the matter without question, but when it comes to AGW you have all this bluster about following the data - which you are as thaumaturgy has shown incapable of doing anyway, why the double standard? Not Science, Politics.

As I said, I am not looking for respect from you. I am looking for you to deal with the data rather than always spouting off about how you disrespect me.

Not interested in the data, neither of us is equipped to deal with it better than Thaumaturgy or, more importantly the world's climatological experts. I am interested in why you don't accept the word of relevant scientists in the case of AGW when it is likely that you do accept the word of relevant scientists in the case of every other area of science that you don't grasp.

YOu know, Mr. Bailey. Whether or not I am worthy of respect or not does not change one bit of the data. The data still sits out there and is ignored by you.

Indeed it is. But not by Thaumaturgy, thankfully, who has dealt with your data admirably and showed that he has a far better grasp of it than you do.

Thank god one of us isn't statistically close to illiterate

 

[thaumaturgy]

Hey Glenn, I just noted this post of yours:

I averaged the months and plotted them. Below is the data for 1989 to 2000 for Okemah and Okmulgee.

But interestingly enough just a few posts earlier you said this:

I am downloading the DAILY data, not the monthly. The monthly data isn't raw....

So, you are using data that has already been MANIPULATED.

...

Yeah, that is why what I am using is better than what you are using. You are using manipulated averages rather than looking at the raw data.
...
What I have ALWAYS said I was using. RAW DATA. Monthly data isn't RAW.
...

DAILY data. Not edited monthly data. The fact that your monthly data is so perfectly lined up along the slope =1 line and mine isn't says that there is a huge amount of editing done to the data to make it pretty before you download it. Then you do your thing and say, 'voila, my statistics show no problem'.

Use the raw data which is Daily data.

(Emphasis added).

Now, simply put, if you are averaging the daily data:

1. You are manipulating it in a way you just told me was bad for me to do.
2. I don't understand what basis you are averaging it on, since there are only 100 data points in your set but in reality there's 30,000+ data points in the daily data set. Exactly what kind of averaging are you doing?
And how do you wind up with several points near 100 from that average?

You see, Glenn it looks to me like you are clipping the data all ways to Sunday in random means.

When I plot the whole data set the slope ~ 0.98, whcn you plot your editted/averaged/manipulated data set you wind up with a slope = 0.8 and no explanation of how you got there.

Make sure you are living up to the same standards as you demand others to live up to.

 

[grmorton]

Glenn, this is very important: what data were YOU graphing?

You claim to graph daily data but your scatter plot had only 100 data points on it. There are over 30,000 data points in the daily set.

This is key. If you are manipulating or removing data you need to let me know what you are doing.

You need to explain why YOUR "DAILY DATA SET" has only 0.3% of all the data.

Thau, I always will admit my errors and I screwed up the first plot. I admit it. Excel for some reason clips the number of points and I don't have a foggy clue as to why. But, I let that thing through so I will accept responsibility for it. It might take me a time or two to correct it but I always will.

Now,I will keep asking this question until you answer it, Glenn.

Fair enough. You should ask until I answer. What I do to others is fair to be done to me.

Now, I am going to turn this around and ask you three you have failed to answer and I will ask it until you answer.

Do you think the slope on the Okemah-Okmulgee data can be 1 when the 180 day running average looks like this??

Note that from 1988 until 2000 Okemah was significantly warmer than Okmulgee. There is no way on earth that the slope can be 1 for the 1990s because if it were, the 180 day average should be close to zero.

Secondly I want to ask if you think this pattern of temperature difference between Brookhaven City and Monticello MS is indicative of the temperature collection system working well.

Finally, what, if anything, would falsify global warming in your mind? Is there ANY data that would make you change your mind? Or is it fixed, set in concrete. Be specific.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Your own graph shows exactly what I have been saying. Look at the width of the scatter gram!!! Look at it instead of just claiming victory. Notice that at 40 degrees in Okemah, the scatter in Okmulgee's temperature goes from 15 deg F to over 50 deg F. Now you claim that we can measure temperature quite accurately but your chart says we can't.

Let's look at how "spread out" that cloud really is around the line.

Here's yet another histogram of the daily difference data for all of these 30,682 points (I didn't "average" anything here as you might, so I end up using all available data, not just some strange average that winds up with only 100 data points).

(This is Okemah - Okmulgee)

So when you wave your hands at the data cloud and point out that:

Notice that at 40 degrees in Okemah, the scatter in Okmulgee's temperature goes from 15 deg F to over 50 deg F

Well, that's only about 36 times when that happens (go ahead and count the number of times the difference between stations = 25 or greater). In fact only 3% of the time is the difference between the two stations greater than 10 deg F.

What you see in the data cloud is hard to parse because of the resolution of the picture, but in fact around that little line in the graph 50% of all the data (15,340 data points) lie within +1.5 degrees difference.

The median difference of daily observations between the two stations over the course of about a century amounts to 0 degrees F.

The numbers say what the numbers say. This is pretty accurate on average.

You can download the daily data and you can run the exact same tests I have run. If you don't have a stats package you can download R for free and you can run a histogram to check this out.

 

[Baggins]

I love this Thistlethorn. Geology took your position years ago toward the man who postulated continental drift. Alfred Wegener was told exactly what you say--that he was not qualified to doubt the geological 'experts' who all knew, and indeed had a consensus that continental drift was false. They treated him very very badly.

This is rubbish. Wegener had a large amount of circumstantial evidence for continental drift but no mechanism so it was an interesting idea with no hard science behind it.

He wasn't treated badly he had a fulfilled career in meteorology and died on Greenland setting up meteorological stations. He took a bit of intellectual flak, mainly in the USA, but he was also supported in Europe and the UK, and idea that attempts to overthrow a entrenched theory is going to engender vigorous debate I don't think his treatment was any worse than many other scientists bringing new ideas to the forum. I have never seen anything except assertion suggesting that he was a professor in Austria because he rejected in Germany for his ideas on continental drift.

Some of the most influential geologists of the day, like Arthur Holmes Britain's pre-eminent geologist - supported his thesis, but it was never going to be accepted without a mechanism and that wasn't discovered until 20-30 years after his untimely death. Wegener's suggested mechanisms - tides or magnetics - were so obviously wide of the mark that it undermined the strength of his geological evidence.

Nevertheless this idea that Wegener was an outsider shunned by the establishment is absolute bunk, he was an Earth Scientist who had the support of some very eminent geologists but no mechanism to drive his movements. In fact Arthur Holmes in the first edition of his Principles of Geology postulated some ideas that weren't massively wide of the mark.

You will have to do better than that hoary old canard Mr Morton even a casual glance at wikipedia shows it to be melodramatic rubbish. Why don't you dredge up the story about stomach ulcers and bacteria?

Wegener had the support of a substantial set of geologists for his idea including one of the most eminent in the world at that time - Arthur Holmes - can you find me a similar subset of eminent climatologists that support Mr Drallos' stuff?

Edited to say this idea that Wegener was almost universally castigated may be an Amerocentric ( is that a word ) idea. His work was almost universally rejected in the US but not else where especially where his evidence was easy to view - like South Africa ( Du Toit ), and the UK ( Holmes )

So I will agree to disagree on this one, many US sources post the same stuff you do where as non-US sources are much less inclined to that view. But the US isn't the world and it wasn't even a very important part of the scientific world in the early 20th century.

I have no doubt that the land bridge theory and static continents was the more widely held theory pre 1950s but there were a large minority of very important and influential geologists who continued to support his ideas after his death.

Nothing comparable is happening in climatology there is no strong counter theory to AGW with influential support within the climatology community. There is no convincing counter theory coming from outside the climatology community that is attracting strong and influential support within it.

So Mr Morton trying equate Mr Drallos with Alfred Wegener is not only ridiculous it also a red herring. The idea that he was a lone voice shouting the truth in the wilderness is very romantic but doesn't stand up to even cursory investigation.

He wasn't an outsider, he wasn't universally derided, he had very strong and influential support from within the Earth Science community and he wasn't treated very very badly, he got a professorship in his chosen discipline in his 40s which is actually quite young

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thau, I always will admit my errors and I screwed up the first plot. I admit it. Excel for some reason clips the number of points and I don't have a foggy clue as to why.

OK, then. We've all had that happen. These are huge data sets. I can understand that.

But, I let that thing through so I will accept responsibility for it. It might take me a time or two to correct it but I always will.

Not a problem.

 

[plindboe]

PS to Glenn: How can you STAND it here, Glenn???

I'm sorry you've not been met with the most friendly posts, and I'm sure you deserve better responses. The problem is timing. You entered a thread that has become rather emotional, which an aggressive, strawman-ridden OP inevitably leads to.

It annoys people when you make comments like the above, as if you're completely blind to Glenn's contributions to the animosity in this thread. Try not to make this an us-vs.-them issue, only focusing on the wrongs that the other side do.

Perhaps the best strategy is to take a breather and come back in a few days when everyone has calmed down. Thaum is normally very friendly, and I'm sure you two could have an interesting discussion I'd certainly like to lurk.

Btw, what post was that article you mention in? In a 42 page long thread, it's easier for me to ask, rather than go looking for it.

Peter

 

[grmorton]

Mr Morton you surely do get off on talking about things you know nothing about don't you?

I worked on a seismic crew so I know that guys who ride boats are the chief geophysicists for the entire corporation of the likes of Halliburton, GSI and WesternGeco.

First meteorology and now my job title.

It goes to your veracity. You keep inflating things

I do work offshore and my job title is Chief Geophysicist, that is what is written on my contract.

I have no doubt that that is your title. I think it should be clear that it isn't for the corporation.

I am the lead geophysicist on my boat and my company job title is as I stated.

That is exactly what I was saying and you think I don't know what I am talking about.

People better trained in climatology disagree with you, as you obviously, as Thaumaturgy has shown, have little idea how this data is handled at even the most basic level I think it would be prudent of me to take the word of the experts in their field over that of a right wing oil man, and I would suggest everyone else does the same.

And once again, this is the don't question, just believe attitude of the AGW crowd. Since when has science become an occupation for believers rather than skeptics?

Checking the evidence out for ones self if one if capable is fine but you obviously don't understand the evidence and have such a healthy self regard for your own intellect that you cannot see this.

So, you think I shouldn't worry about an air conditioner next to the thermometer in 8% of the US stations? Are you serious?

Since when is it believed OK for climatologists to heat their thermometers and then claim "Oh my God the world is warming?"

I am always astonished at the intellectual hubris it requires for an outsider to tell a whole separate field of scientific endevour that they are wrong, it is a strange and scarey thing to observe.

And I am astonished at the utter lack of curiosity and backbone by those who can see the above, be told that 8% of the stations have this problem and think everything is ok.

Mr. Bailey, do you think that this is a good way to get the temperature--the correct temperature that is?

Here is another.

Who is the idiot at GISS who thinks these stations are giving a good answer????

I am, I am also well aware that plasma Physics and being a CEO of a software company have nothing to do with climatology, and that the vast majority of the world's climatologists and meteorologists are in consensus on this matter. I don't have the intellectual hubris to declare them all wrong because the proposed solutions to the problem bend my politics out of shape.

So, you being a geophysicists are totally unable to determine if the above two pictures indicate that the temperatures collected by those mmts's are bad? You really can't determine for your self, without a climatologist telling you what to think, that air conditioners next to thermometers is bad?

Are you serious? What are you smoking?

I don't think climatologists are my betters. I don't think anyone is my better really I am pretty arrogant. Climatologists just know what they are talking about when it comes to AGW unlike you , me and Mr Drallos.

Of course you think they are your superiors and betters. You never question what they say!!!! They are your intellectual superiors to tell you what to think and you never question things like the pictures above. Amazing.

You are obviously NOT qualified to determine that an air conditioner next to an air conditioner might heat the reading of the thermometer. That is way way above your abilities. Here is another case which of course, I don't expect an inexpert person like you to conclude that the temperature coming from this station might be biased. Clearly the climatologists are the only ones who can determine this.

I would expect a climatologist to accept my explanation of plate tectonics or seismology and I return that professional courtesy, you are unable to do that because of your politics.

You know this is really funny Mr. Bailey. You all say that we should accept the explanations of expert climatologists, yet my opening post is written by me, a person expert in the geologic history of the earth and you all want to deny it. There is no controversy about the existence of the Mid Holocene climatic Optimum. Everyone accepts it. Yet, somehow consensus is to be beleived when it is in favor of AGW but disbelieved if it is against it. Is that your position---Oh never mind, you might not be expert enough to conclude something for yourself.

You are also the one unable to understand the data you are posting and making erroneous conclusions from it as Thaumaturgy has so ably demonstrated.

REally? And you are able to make this judgement as a non-statistician? It seems to me you trot out the ability to make scientific judgements when you want to but then hide in the shadows when you dont' want to look at the standard deviation problem. To be within the 95% confidence interval one needs to be within 3 standard deviations. The SD for Okemah minus Okmulgee is 3.8 degrees. The claim is that the world has warmed by 1.1 deg F over a century yet, the 95% confidence interval is approximately +/- 11.4 deg F It is idiotic to say that the world has warmed 1.1 +/- 11.4 deg F--and then say that the world has actually warmed.

I have no interest in posting data, I am interested in the real reasons that you cannot accept AGW, they have nothing to do with data and everything to do with your politics.

You can now read minds but can't look at thermometers next to air conditioners and conclude that that is bad? Amazing!!!

Here is another air conditioner.

I'm not even doing that really beyond a belief that science works and it is best left to experts in their field to guide policy based on science.

YEs, it would be too tough on the wee brain to conclude for oneself that the air conditioners next to thermometers might make the temperature record problematic. Too tough for you absolutely. Sit, believe....believe...believe.

I'm not trying to be scientific

That is clear, abundantly clear to one and all.

I have little time for anyone who would denigrate honest scientists as priests because his politics can' deal with their science, very poor show.

YOu treat them as priests never doubting what they tell you.

Geesh, according to Mr. Bailey we should never ever ever doubt that the climatologists are giving you the correct temperature data because they tell you that all is ok even if 8% of the stations have air conditioners.

Believe whatever they tell you. We wouldn't want your brain to go on overload thinking about the problems of air conditioner exhaust and thermometers.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Now, I am going to turn this around and ask you three you have failed to answer and I will ask it until you answer.

Do you think the slope on the Okemah-Okmulgee data can be 1 when the 180 day running average looks like this??

Well, the numbers say what the numbers say. The slope of two data sets when graphed against each other on a day-by-day basis do indeed come out to about 1.

But if you look at the scatterplot there are outliers. The fact your 180 running average shows is that the bounce is around 4 to 6 degrees on the plus side, and considering that there is real spread around the data I can see how that could still wind up with a slope of about 1.

Again, if the math is in error, show me where. (I'll wait until you run the whole data set and calculate a slope).

Note that from 1988 until 2000 Okemah was significantly warmer than Okmulgee.

On average only about 3 degrees. But you are correct there are more positives than negatives in that time frame.

But, again, I have shown mathematically that even with offsets that flip back and forth as long as the two stations show the same relative trend then that trend can still show up in the data.

There is no way on earth that the slope can be 1 for the 1990s because if it were, the 180 day average should be close to zero.

I don't know that the slope is exactly 1 for the 1990's. But I have shown now that the slope for the entire data set is about 1 (just shy) and in fact is so tightly clustered around that slope=1 line that you can barely make out the 95% confidence band for the fit.

Secondly I want to ask if you think this pattern of temperature difference between Brookhaven City and Monticello MS is indicative of the temperature collection system working well.

Not working perfectly. But considering how the data is actually used probably not that badly.

Remember, again the data is used on a gridded average and treated on a continental scale, so the noise will probably tend to even out. That's one of the advantages of averaging.

Finally, what, if anything, would falsify global warming in your mind? Is there ANY data that would make you change your mind? Or is it fixed, set in concrete. Be specific.

Maybe if you could show me:

1. How all the temperature data (not just the surface station data) is somehow fatally flawed in a way the climatologists don't understand or haven't noted and how that has rendered the numerous models "hindcasting" this data somehow in error.

2. If models like Hansen's 1988 model hadn't worked well for the following 12 years, and then show the error in the estimation of the CO[sub]2[/sub] forcing function calculations

But I've already laid out why I think AGW is accurate many posts back on POST #287 so I don't have to go over that again.