The Holocene Deniers

[grmorton]

I have. Please see post just two back.

And Your map is totally inconsistent with the data one gets at GISS's Global climate at a glance site for 2000 to the present. HEre is the link.Global Climate at a Glance (GCAG), the main page

Here are a couple more grid trend plots. Notice that they are cooling, yet you claim that it is warming. Inconsistencies in how the data is handled are to be found throughout the GISS data if one is willing to look at it.

 

[grmorton]

For those who think that heat sources are not a problem for thermometers in the US Historical Climate Network, I would proffer this fine photo of a barbeque sitting close to the thermometer. Are you all saying that cooking hamburgers on the grill won't affect the tempertature??? Are you all crazy?

All it takes to find these things is a penny's worth of curiosity. Nothing more. I will gladly give each of you a penny.

 

[Frank Lovell]

...Ah me...more evidence of a failure to communicate.

Is that your special code for something?...

Nope; it is a sentence which straightforward describes my assessment of how your post failed to respond-to or address my previously expressed concerns about the present claims of AGW. If you are satisfied that you did respond-to/address my previously expressed concerns about the present claims of AGW, then that confirms (for me at least) that we are indeed having a failure to communicating efficiently (but don't worry, I happily have already explicitly accept the full blame for the failure to communicate).

...I don't get it....

I believe you.

...I get that you are trying to display for us your humility,...

I am telling you how I feel about how our attempt to discuss my previously expressed concerns about the present claims of AGW is going; to the extent that I have humility, I guess I should be grateful that it shows. If I do have humility and it shows, do you disapprove of that?

...but I really don't understand the point of that phrase.

I believe you -- sorry, but I don't know how to better communicate the point of the phrase "more evidence of a failure to communicate" better. Don't let it worry you, I accept the blame for our failure to communicate effectively.

...I am sitting here this afternoon and I'm getting ready to read the Drallos essay so please give a bit of time for me to address your other points...

I am excited by the prospect that someone here is at least going to give Drallos a (hopefully thoughtful) reading! Please take your time, for the last thing I want is a quick-and-dirty/less-than-fully thoughtful response to it that does not explain to me why his crucial points should not underwrite my present skepticism of the truth of the present claims of AGW, for that would not help me understand where I (or Drallos) have gone wrong.

...But, of course the last time I addressed your points I got the famous "Say WHAT???" reply from you..."

First, I'm curious -- what makes my "Say WHAT?" reply "famous?

Second, I replied with "Say WHAT???" because it seemed like an effective way to concisely convey that I did not see how your reply addressed or related to any actual position of mine that I had expressed. Obviously I was wrong that it was effective in conveying that I did not see how your reply addressed or related to any actual position of mine that I had expressed, and is another example of our attempt to communicate is failing AND that that failure is my fault. (Over the years I have learned that every failure to communicate between me and another person is always MY fault, never, ever in any way the other person's fault -- and so I now readily accept that blame, saving the other person from having to point that out; now, of course, I get ridiculed for doing that from time to time, and I am pleased we've gotten this far without you ridiculing me for doing that, though it seemed you did get close to doing so up above.)

...But more importantly you did open the discussion up to "skepticism" in general, not just your own...

Well, I often explicitly acknowledge that my own thinking is feeble and fallible, and I reckon this is proof of that, for I honestly thought that the "discussion" here was "open to skepticism in general" before I even got here. I arrived and thought maybe y'all could discuss with me elements of my own skepticism.

...That was what I was addressing. Since I've been discussing with Glenn now for nearly 300 posts worth of exchange on AGW skepticism...

I see; and you thought that, what the heck, rather than discuss with Frank the elements of his skepticism, you'll instead continue to discuss the elements of Glenn's skepticism with Frank -- am I understanding you correctly? Or, did 300 posts of prior dialogue about the elements of Glenn's skepticism accumulate some sort of physical momentum that you just couldn't put on the brakes to it when I came on the scene with my additional and rather different elements of my skepticism -- is that what I should understand from what you just said?

I have also previously acknowledged that one of my mistakes was coming here to this sub-forum with unreasonable expectations; one of those unreasonable expectations I came here was that in discussion with me folks would address the elements of my skepticism, and in discussion with others folks would discuss the elements of their skepticism.

Silly me!

...(for instance, I have not given you any "anecdotal data points")...

Correct and I never said you did...

So why say anything to me about "anecdotal data points"?

Can you really NOT see the reason why I think that so far we have had a failure to communicate???

(I used three question marks to try to convey the depth of my genuine bafflement and frustration; please forgive me if you disapprove of my doing that.)

...I did however point out that the only data so far discussed have been of anecdotal variety...

Yes, you did point that out to me -- and my reply was to point out in return that I had not introduced any "anecdotal data points" in anything I had posted here in my efforts to discuss my skepticism. You really feel I said something inappropriate or irrelevant therein?

...[Glenn's] case for his skepticism and my case for my skepticism have some overlapping elements,...

So are you suggesting his obsession with individual temperature stations is not necessarily a valid point of skepticism or is it valid?

I was not suggesting anything -- rather I was plainly saying that Glenn's case for his skepticism and my case for my skepticism have some overlapping elements.

I will not presently say what I think of Glenn's case for skepticism; I may at a future time say what I think of Glenn's case for skepticism, but presently I just want to discuss my case for my skepticism of the claims of AGW.

...but they have different focuses of primary concern -- even though I find Glenn's case pretty compelling...

Which part?...

I will not presently say what I think of Glenn's case for skepticism; I may at a future time say what I think of Glenn's case for skepticism, but presently I just want to discuss my case for my skepticism of the claims of AGW. If this does not meet with your approval, just tell me, and I will happily crawl back under the rock I came from (which I gather will make Thistle-something happy).

...The total avoidance of statistical robustness or the constant hammering on anecdotal evidence that ultimately has little if anything to do with how the data is actually applied? I mean both are pretty compelling.

True, but at the moment I DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS GLENN'S CASE FOR SKEPTICISM (I may at a later time), I WANT TO DISCUSS MY CASE FOR SKEPTICISM. Am I asking too much?

...(which no doubt proves that Mr. "Baggins" prejudged me correctly)...

...Why do you put Baggins' name in quotes all the time? Is it just to prove some point about cybernyms?...

Ooooo, touche -- ya got me, good material criticism! I'll stop doing that.

...(oh, btw, I like that term I had not heard it before)...

As far as I know, I coined the term back in the mid-1990s (I am unaware of having seen anyone else use it before I started using it), feel free to start using it (others have picked up on it since).

...But actually if you find Glenn's case compelling and that is in no small part based on his presentation of material here and on his blog then I don't think any critique of your reasoning has anything necessarily to do with politics...

I agree, my reasoning on this issue has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with politics. Try explaining that to Baggins, I did NOT introduce politics into the discussion.

...The fact that you are a libertarian simply reinforces a previously established correlation. And all of us here know that correlation is not causation.

I do not think all here understand that (f'instance, Baggins for one; possibly Gracchus for another, but there's an outside chance he was speaking tongue-in-cheek, I'm not sure yet).

..I didn't come here to defend Glenn's case or run interference for him...

If you find his case compelling it is clearly the one that been most well established on this thread, but I agree you are not supposed to defend the man you feel has been treated as a "punching bag" by us here on this forum.

Thank you! If we ever manage to discuss the where I have gone wrong with the elements of my case for skepticism, I may then share why I feel Glenn's case is a compelling case for skepticism of the claims of AGW, but first I'd like to accomplish what I came here to this sub-forum for. I find it hard to understand why you'd find that hard to understand.

...I am not asking you to...

Oh. By the constant reference to elements of Glenn's case for skepticism in you posts to me, it seemed in effect like you were asking me to.

...I do find it interesting that when I did discuss your points you responded with the "Say WHAT???" reply that didn't really address any of the science I raised...

I replied with "Say WHAT???" to THAT post of your to me because it seemed like an effective way to concisely convey that I did not see how your reply addressed or related to any actual position of mine that I had expressed (I covered this already not far from the start of this post).

...I am doubly intrigued because now that I know you are a physical organic chemist I rather thought you would provide us with some new scientific meat here.

Really, you thought that?

I could be wrong, but I don't think there is a great deal of physical organic chemistry involved in global climate -- there is some involved of course (especially respecting the ecology of the biosphere, and in photosynthesis which consumes CO2, and in bacterial decay of plant an animal material which produces methane, thing like that -- but the largest process at work which influence global climate temperatures are not what physical organic chemists primarily study. So, sorry to disappoint you, I have no "new scientific meat" concerning global climate change/temperature. I am just a tax-paying, energy-consuming citizen (who happens also to be a physical organic chemist, but I could be a shoe salesman or a plumber and still see the case for skepticism of AGW that I presently see).

As a physical-organic chemist, however, I do have a certain scientific savvy and some modest math skills -- but I grant nothing like yours, of course.

...from criticism (I think he does a better job of that than you think he does)...

...A professional scientist like Glenn should be able to address errors in statistics far more eloquently than merely saying I am "wrong" and then running away from the math. A professional scientist of Glenn's caliber should also know that not all noise is signal and doesn't necessarily represent some bizarre impossible physical phenomenon...

I think Glenn understands the difference between signals and noise just fine, but you are free to hold a different opinion about that. I think not all noise is necessarily noise, but I am sure you also know that too. In any event, what I came to this sub-forum was to see if I might learn reasons why I should abandon my (overlapping but rather different from Glenn's) case for skepticism of the present claims of AGW. I do not understand why you'd find that hard to understand (oh, I said that already -- sorry!).

...But if you find his approach to be "compelling" then I would very much like to see how you deal with the numbers as well. I really would.

I am sure you would.

And you may get your wish.

But first, I would very much like to discuss the elements of my case for skepticism (as well-articulated by Drallos for starters, to save me from having to re-articulate what he has already outlined so conveniently) so I can learn where I have gone wrong (if I have gone wrong) to be skeptical of the claims of AGW. I really would.

We've got a geophysicist (Baggins), a petroleum explorationist (Glenn) a physical organic chemist (you) and a geochemist/industrial R&D chemist (me) all here. I'd really like to see some more numbers.

What, no experts here in climatology? I've been told a couple of times here that since I am not a climatology expert, nobody has any reason to listen to me -- which is fine, I didn't come here to tell anyone here what they must or should think or believe. Since no one else here is a climatology expert, maybe I am in the wrong place (if to be worthy of being listened-to on the subject of global climate dynamics one must be an expert in climatology) for learning where I have gone wrong (if I have gone wrong) in my skepticism of the claim that AGW is "settled science."

... but rather to learn where I am going wrong in my skepticism (if I am going wrong) -- but nobody wants to discuss my case for skepticism with me,...

Oh just stop it! I did address some of your points in Post #391 and post #399...

And I addressed back those points that I could recognize to be responsive to or at least directly related to elements of my case for skepticism.

...Others have addressed the Drallos essay...

I respectfully disagree that at this point in our dialogue anyone here has already "addressed Drallos' essay." That one person here, on the basis of a "scan" of the essay, doesn't think Drallos was proper with the data plotted in his figure 1 does NOT constitute having "addressed Drallos' essay!"

But if you think so, fine, trash his essay, claim I have been shown ample reasons for why I should abandon my case for skepticism of AGW, and I'll leave you alone and see if anyone else can do better than that.

[CONTINUED NEXT POST]

 

[Frank Lovell]

[CONTINUED FROM LAST POST]

...What do you mean by "address your skepticism"? Do you mean support its conclusions?

Oh, now you just stop it! I don't deserve those questions and neither they nor the horse they rode in on deserve an answer from me.

I'll level with you, whatever your political persuasion doesn't matter to me when the hard facts get involved. That's why I've been going on about the data. I'll not lie, I am no fan of the conservative end of the spectrum here in the U.S., but if you have facts and data then plop them out. No more of this persecution stuff.

I'll level with you: I am not here to persuade you or anyone else of ANYthing whatsoever.

Morever, if I had come here to persuade you or anyone else here of anything, I've now seen enough to realize it cannot be done, for y'all already know everything.

I came here to see if I could learn why I should abandon my case for skepticism of the truth of the highly politicized claim that AGW (that human activity is the primary -- or even a major -- cause of global warming and not just one influence to some extent or other among many influences) is "settled science."

By the way, I do not feel persecuted. I have been talked at, talked past, talked down to, belittled, and told that my personal political perspectives (which no one here really knows anything about) and particular educational and professional focus renders me unworthy to speak about or question the claims of AGW, all of which is fine enough (I am always happy at least to serve in making people feel better about themselves) but none of which thus far gives me any reason to abandon my case for skepticism of AGW .

...But when someone like me addresses the science points you raise like in post #391 and #399 that just gets lumped in with all the others who aren't addressing your skepticism. I hardly see how it pays off to address your points.

Again, I addressed back those points that I could recognize to be responsive to or at least directly related to elements of my case for skepticism. If you really think what you've posted to me thus far [meaning as of the date/time you posted he message I am presently responding-to] constitutes a sufficiently adequate critique of the elements of my case for skepticism of AGW, you are not any help to me at all, for I don't think you have even scratched the surface of my case.

If you don't want to do any more than scratch the surface (and you surely have no obligation to anything for me), just say so, and you and I can stop wasting our time.

...That's OK, I get the message.

No, I don't think you do. No one (at least not me) wants to shut you down. I do, however, wish to get the facts straight. I will address your scientific case as I have addressed Glenn's.

That'd be nice.

We are all professional scientists here so let's talk science. And let's stop with this political stuff.

Fine -- but the way you said what you just said makes me wonder, just how and by whom do you think did "political stuff" arose in our attempt to discuss the science of global climate? (Asked rhetorically, for I know how and by whom, the record of dialogue documents it -- I just wonder if you know).

...Various of you can show irritation/frustration/dismissal by prejudgmentally outright ad hominems and pejorative innuendos and aim 'em at any skeptic of AGW that's handy -- but I mustn't reveal any such irritation/frustration via multiple quotation marks.

Are you serious? Have you really actually read this thread at all?

I am, and I have.

But I sure don't want to rehash it any more, the record of dialogue speaks for itself. If you think I am all wrong therein, fine, I am all wrong therein. If there are scientific reasons why I should abandon my case for skepticism of AGW as "settled science," I'd like to kearn them so I can decide whether I should abandon my present skepticism. If you can help me in this, I'd appreciate it. If you don't want to, that's fine, but please tell me now.

...I am growing quite tired of this line of whining. Sorry to call it that, but that is precisely what it is...

Right, I'm a whiner, totally unjustified to boot.

...Let's talk about your science.

That'd be nice -- but let's don't talk about MY science, lets' talk about plain ol' empirical science and my case for skepticism of AGW , if you can and if you will.

Look, Frank, I'm sitting here this afternoon and I'm reading your blessed Drallos essay. Give me a little time and I'll address what I can.

I see now that you have already posted your "take" in post #448. THANKS! I will take my time to give your post a thoughtful read, see what I can learn from it, and then post back to you. So that I do not get distracted and off-track, I will not read or post anything else here until first I finish giving your critique due consideration. THANKS AGAIN!

-- Frank

 

[Baggins]

Then you don't know the history of your own business. Do you know what the AAPG Memoir #1 is???? It is the bar-b-que of Alfred Wegener. That book is now a collectors item which brings big bucks on the secondary market.


For those who don't know what the AAPG is it is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, one of the organizations of which I am a member. It skewered Wegener and Mr. Bailey lacks knoweldge of the history of his own discipline.

And you seem to unable to grasp the simple fact that because the AAPG, in fact any number of US scientists, skewered Wegener doesn't mean he was treated very very badly. People who can't support their hypothesis with a working mechanism will get skewered and rightly so,

Doesn't change the fact that he made Prof in his mid 40s and had some very eminent and voiciferous supporters within the geological community in Europe, chief among them Arthur Holmes, Britain's greatest geologist pre WWII.

The fact that you seem unaware of Holmes' eminence suggests it is you who has little knowledge of your own discipline or that you think it stops at US borders. The US was an Earth Sciences back water then and I doubt Wegener or Holmes had too much concern that a hick body like AAPG was giving Wegener a skewering.

 

[grmorton]

And you seem to unable to grasp the simple fact that because the AAPG, in fact any number of US scientists, skewered Wegener doesn't mean he was treated very very badly. People who can't support their hypothesis with a working mechanism will get skewered and rightly so,

Really, did you read of his inability to get a full professorship where he wanted to live??? Did you even read that historical account taken from the pages of that AAPG volume? I don't think you did.

Doesn't change the fact that he made Prof in his mid 40s and had some very eminent and voiciferous supporters within the geological community in Europe, chief among them Arthur Holmes, Britain's greatest geologist pre WWII.



The fact that you seem unaware of Holmes' eminence suggests it is you who has little knowledge of your own discipline or that you think it stops at US borders. The US was an Earth Sciences back water then and I doubt Wegener or Holmes had too much concern that a hick body like AAPG was giving Wegener a skewering.

How on earth did you get the idea that I was unaware of Holmes? Is this mind-reading again? I didn't mention him, because I don't mention in posts every possible person I am familiar with. If failure to mention everyone I know of is to become evidence that I am unaware of them, this is going to become a very very tedious forum. Sheesh. I didn't mention that I am aware of Plotinus either. Nor did I mention that I am aware of Thucydides, Plutarch, Archibald Geike, Arkell and Arnold Schwarzenegger. I want you to be aware that there are lots of people I am aware of whom I have never mentioned in this thread.

Holmes of course published a book in the mid 1940s containing a chapter on drift. But, that was 14 years after Wegener died. I somehow think that Wegener was not comforted in his coffin by Holmes' support.

By the way Mr. Bailey, is it good science for the University of Arizona managed Tuscon weather station to be sited on cement when the NOAA siting recommendations say this makes it one of the worst kind of stations there is?

Here again is what the siting handbook says of such sites:

Class 5 (error >= 5ºC) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf


Why is it that those who teach young meteorologists the craft run such a bad station which is under their management?

Is this good science Baggins?

Here is another example. this one gets the addition of hot car engines parked near it.

as does this one.

Isn't global warming wonderful?

Earlier you said that if all we have is pictures then we don't have much. Well, a picture of you doing a crime will get you convicted. I am incensed by the sloppy science these guys are engaged in.

 

[thaumaturgy]

(deleted due to error in calculation)

 

[thaumaturgy]

And you seem not to understand that when a survey shows that 8% of all thermometers are next to heat sources, and that causes a 5 deg C rise in temperature (see the siting document I have mentioned before), that .08 x 5 = 0.4 deg C of warming just due to the effect of nearby heat sources. The IPCC says that global warming over the past 100 years is .84 deg C, and if .4 of that is due to heat sources, then in reality the best you can eke out is a .44 deg C warming, not the alarming amount claimed by the IPCC.

If you can't understand that, then you don't understand math.

.

I'll address it: The siting is HORRIBLE. Just bad.

But, let's take a look again at what an 8% "bad placement" rate can do to a dataset.

I generated two independent datasets each with 1000 data points random-normally distributed (mean = 6, Stdev =2). One set I left alone, the other I randomly chose (with the help of a random number generator) 98 data points which I added 5 degrees onto. And then on top of each of these a 0.01slope was put on in order to induce a trend.

This is what I found:

In both cases the slope was, as expected 0.01. The y-intercepts are different by 0.4 and the adjusted R^2 for the one without the random 5 degree additions is 0.66 while the one with the random 5 degree additions is 0.55.

So the addition of those 98 random "positive offsets" only slightly changed the correlation coefficient on the same trend.

Again, note the little red shaded area around the fit. That is the 95% confidence interval on the fit. Both fits have F-statistics with p-values <0.0001, which is highly significant (non-zero)

 

[Thistlethorn]

Let me laugh at your argument about global warming trends, Baggins. I mean, look at this:

Look at the guy's hair! Is that science, Baggins?

Now look at this:

Are you going to tell me this is good science, Baggins? Are you?

How about this? Good science?

Why won't you tell me if you think this is good science or not?

By the way, thank you thaumaturgy. I'm learning a lot about statistics reading your posts.

 

[thaumaturgy]

By the way, thank you thaumaturgy. I'm learning a lot about statistics reading your posts.

Thanks! Actually Thistle, I am hoping I'm running the stats correctly. As I said earlier I'm no statistician but the chance to learn and utilize this stuff is a lot of fun.

If you are interested the programs I usually rely on for the better stats are:

JMP (from the SAS Institute), but it costs.

JMP Software - Data Analysis - Statistics - Six Sigma - DOE

So for home use I use the R stats program. It's a free one that is getting a lot of traction in academia and industry. You can learn all about it at:

The Comprehensive R Archive Network

It's a good stats package but it's got a steep learning curve. JMP is much better for being user friendly, and even then it's taken me a couple years to get to the point where I can more easily navigate it.

So far my favorite stats books have been:

"JMP Start Statistics" by Sall, Creighton, Lehmann (SAS Institute)

"Elementary Statistics in Social Research" by Levin et al.

"Introductory Statistics" by Weiss

One of the best on-line resources I've found is the NIST Statistics Handbook: NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods

Believe it or not there's also some good stuff on the lighter end as well. "The Cartoon Guide to Statistics" and "Advanced Statistics for Dummies" aren't half bad!

Again, I am still learning this stuff so I hope that if someone sees an error they will correct me on it. Because I know I'm prone to errors especially as I am on the learning curve.

Definitely check some of these resources out.

 

[Baggins]

Really, did you read of his inability to get a full professorship where he wanted to live??? Did you even read that historical account taken from the pages of that AAPG volume? I don't think you did.

How many people get a professorship exactly where they want to live for goodness sake?
Trying to maintain because he had to go to another University to get a professorship he was treated very very badly is highly amusing, you will go to extraordinary lengths to try and back up your risible claims.

Do you really think getting a professorship at a prestigious European University in his 40s was some sort of terrible punishment

The man had a successful academic career doing what he wanted to do, that is success in my book, perhaps you just have different, ridiculously hyperbolic, definitions of "very very badly" to the rest of us.

How on earth did you get the idea that I was unaware of Holmes? Is this mind-reading again? I didn't mention him, because I don't mention in posts every possible person I am familiar with. If failure to mention everyone I know of is to become evidence that I am unaware of them, this is going to become a very very tedious forum. Sheesh. I didn't mention that I am aware of Plotinus either. Nor did I mention that I am aware of Thucydides, Plutarch, Archibald Geike, Arkell and Arnold Schwarzenegger. I want you to be aware that there are lots of people I am aware of whom I have never mentioned in this thread.

Excellent seeing as you are au fait with Holmes and his stature and his strong support for Wegener you can now withdraw your risible claim that he is in someway analagous to Drollos. Your risible claim that he was treated any worse than anyone else proposing an unsupported hypothesis. Any claim that he was a lone voice, an outsider without support or any other such bollocks.

Wegener was a successful scientist with strong support for his hypothesis from within the geological community, he position was in no way analgous to a political axe grinder who doesn't understand the subject he is attempting to undermine.

Holmes of course published a book in the mid 1940s containing a chapter on drift. But, that was 14 years after Wegener died. I somehow think that Wegener was not comforted in his coffin by Holmes' support.

What has that got to do with anything? He knew he had support in his lifetime.

By the way Mr. Bailey, is it good science for the University of Arizona managed Tuscon weather station to be sited on cement when the NOAA siting recommendations say this makes it one of the worst kind of stations there is?

Who cares apart from a few political axe grinders who don't understand the statistics of trends?


I am amazed you still don't understand why poorly placed individual thermometers don't matter when discussing temperature trends.

You obviously aren't as bright as we, or indeed you, thought

 

[thaumaturgy]

your risible claims.

I just want to take a sec and give mad props to the word "risible" in general. It is a word we Americans use far too infrequently yet one of the coolest words in the English language.

But on the topic of Wegner, might I jump in here as a "recovering geologist" and throw in my two cents to say that if Wegner's hypothesis had been immediately accepted wouldn't it have been strange?

Obviously any new hypothesis, especially one as dramatic as "Continental Drift" would require extraordinary proof. So the fact that Wegner was or wasn't immediately greeted as a victor early on would seem not to matter one way or another.

And that's what we've all been going on about here, isn't it? That concensuses don't matter in the face of the science, but just because a concensus exists doesn't mean that it is necessarily suspect.

For instance there is now a general "concensus" around Plate Tectonics, does that mean we should automatically assume it is amazingly suspect?

(*and I actually had a teacher in undergrad who expressed skepticism about some factors of plate tectonics but I never heard specifically what his issues were.)

But even Wegner's hypothesis of "Continental Drift" lacked a solid mechanism to explain it. From my understanding it was largely "circumstantial". It turned out to be in the right direction but without a fuller mechanistic explanation it was a great hypothesis.

It wasn't until, what, 20 some odd years after his death that paleomagnetic surveys started providing additional lines of evidence and finally ultimately a mechanistic understanding later on.

In a sense, the current AGW hypothesis not only contains a mechanism but has models which appear to support the mechanistic explanation.

The man had a successful academic career doing what he wanted to do, that is success in my book, perhaps you just have different, ridiculously hyperbolic, definitions of "very very badly" to the rest of us.

Well, the poor guy died in the cold outside! Sounds like a homeless guy's death. (Of course it was during a research expedition in Greenland doing his work as a researcher, but c'mon, the only difference would be exchange the phrase "Greenland Research Expedition" with "streets of New York City, under a bridge" and it's practically the same thing!)

Poor Alfred Wegner.

 

[Baggins]

Anyone with any knowledge of the history of geology knows the romantic fantasy of Alfred Wegener the shunned outsider who knew the truth while the establishment shunned it is just that, a fantasy. Usually brought up by people trying to sell scientific moonshine like perpetual motion machines or trying to undermine strongly held scientific ideas.

Alfred Wegener was a successful meteorologist and Earth Scientist, made professor at an early age and spent his whole career doing what he loved and wanted to do - studying Greenland. He came up with an hypothesis of continental drift based on strong circumstantial evidence but lacking a mechanism but despite this, and in spite of strong opposition from the majority of Earth Scientists, he gained the support of a large and influential body of Earth Scientists including some of the leading geologists of the day.

He was never persecuted for his beliefs and it never seemed to hold his career back overly.

He is brought up by people who need a hero for the contention that the lone untutored outsider can overthrow scientific orthodoxy, but in reality he doesn't fit the bill.

I assume Mr Morton knows most of this but was rather counting on not coming across anyone who had actually read books like "The Dating Game" which cover this quite well and debunk the fairytale.

I commend the dating game by the way excellent book about geology in teh early 20th century and radio dating in particular told through the medium of a biography of Holmes.

I also own second edition of Principles of Physical geology by Holmes 1965 and recently read my Fathers first edition 1944.

All excellent stuff, on page 1202 Holmes recounts the storm the Wegener unleashed because whilst he had "marshalled an imposing collection of facts and opinions" "much of his advocacy wasbased on inadequate data and speculation "

He goes on to point out that as late as 1962 many Russian geologists still didn't accept the idea ( Beloussov Basic problems of Geotectonics ).

Even in the second edition the mechanism wasn't understood but the accumulation of supporting data that Wegener had started had reached such a pile that people who had accept Wegener had now become the majority .

that is the way science works, ideas have to fight for their place with facts and correct predictions. Plate tectonics has done that and so has AGW. Evidence may turn up that over throws both ideas but that is now extremely unlikely in the case of Plate Tectonics and becoming increasingly unlikely with passing time in the case of AGW

 

[grmorton]

Let me laugh at your argument about global warming trends, Baggins. I mean, look at this:

Look at the guy's hair! Is that science, Baggins?

Now look at this:

Are you going to tell me this is good science, Baggins? Are you?

How about this? Good science?

Why won't you tell me if you think this is good science or not?

By the way, thank you thaumaturgy. I'm learning a lot about statistics reading your posts.

Up to your usual scientific standards I see. Wow, how impressive you are. I think you just lost credibility and showed that you don't care about science at all.

To the lurkers, this is the kind of science that Holocene denying AGW advocates do. Are you not proud of it?

This morning I posted a picture of Lampasas next to a car. But that site also has an air conditioner. Look above the satellite dish. Thistlethorn thinks that hair is relevant to global warming. I think he has already had his lobotomy. It is a thesis that explains all the facts at hand.

 

[thaumaturgy]

[/size][/font]
Note how this map shows Greenland warming. The problem is that GISS at their site Global climate at a glance, in the dot maps when you click on Greenland's dots shows that since 2000 Greenland has been cooling. Below are two examples.
Why do you think they have totally inconsistent data? Could it be that their data is crap?

I am unsure where the word "average" keeps getting dropped in this conversation but I certainly prefer it over "anecdotal data"

Here's a series of maps showing the trends using different time windows:

Now the top map is 2000-2007, the middle map is 1980-2007 (note it is a longer time period) and the bottom map is 1900-2007.

The thing to note is that there are little blue dots that seem to move around, but in each case the dots only represent regions, not the entire globe.

The key to global climate change is that overall the global average is increasing. If you have noted on any and all of the graphs there's spikes up and down and indeed there are regions where there's some cooling and regions where there's some warming.

So rather than make you add up all the sizes of the dots and run all the averages I've rendered the same time frames into graphs of global average temperature over the same time frames:

Note that in all cases except the top one that trend just keeps going up. If you look only at the 2000-2007 it looks like it's probably impossible to tell but it is not necessarily up or down, the 1980-2007 or the 1900-2007 is always up.

Now with each wider time window we get more insight into the trend. And again the important point is that we are talking global not local temperature trend.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I have gone through and graphed those data points myself from the download.

For the 2000-2007 trend the adj R[sup]2[/sup] =0.15
p-value from the F-test for the trend is only 0.1876 (you can't reject the null that the slope is zero)

For the 1980-2007 trend the adj R[sup]2[/sup] = 0.44
p-value for the F-test for the trend is <<0.001 (7.1x10[sup]-5[/sup]), now we have a statitiscally significant non-zero slope! And the data scatter is improved with a higher adj R^2

For the 1900-2007 trend the adj R[sup]2[/sup] = 0.56
p-value for the F-test on the trend is <<0.001 (in fact it is 2.2x10[sup]-16[/sup] which is very significantly non-zero indeed!)

As you add data and increase the time frame you get a clearer picture of an upward trend.

Here's what the three graphs look like (the red dashed line is the 95&#37; confidence interval on the fit)

More data seems to make the trend more clear.

 

[grmorton]

I'll address it: The siting is HORRIBLE. Just bad.

Glad you think so. Here is another (Thistlethorn with his lobotmized brain will think it is a picture of hair).

But, let's take a look again at what an 8&#37; "bad placement" rate can do to a dataset.

I generated two independent datasets each with 1000 data points random-normally distributed (mean = 6, Stdev =2). One set I left alone, the other I randomly chose (with the help of a random number generator) 98 data points which I added 5 degrees onto. And then on top of each of these a 0.01slope was put on in order to induce a trend.

This is what I found:

In both cases the slope was, as expected 0.01. The y-intercepts are different by 0.4 and the adjusted R^2 for the one without the random 5 degree additions is 0.66 while the one with the random 5 degree additions is 0.55.

So the addition of those 98 random "positive offsets" only slightly changed the correlation coefficient on the same trend.

Again, note the little red shaded area around the fit. That is the 95% confidence interval on the fit. Both fits have F-statistics with p-values <0.0001, which is highly significant (non-zero)

Once again, I find problems with your model. Thau, the thing you keep forgetting is to make sure that your model matches the physical situation. The 8% of the points are NOT randomly distributed. The points affected both by cement and by air conditioners are all in the last half of last century.

Reality: I grew up in the 1950s in Oklahoma. It was hot there in the summer. In Ardmore, along the southern border it got particularly hot. It could reach 120 F for several days each summer. 110 F was not unusual. Fifteen minutes playing outside would make you sick.

We didn't have air conditioning. No one on our block had central air conditioners. Go back to the 1930s and almost no one had air conditioning in the US. That means, you need to increasingly stack your 'random 98' towards the latter part of the temperature stream.

In the early 1900s few towns had cement streets. So, once again, the added points need to be weighted towards the modern end of the spectrum.

For these reasons, your model is nice but again, irrelevant. It doesn't match historical reality. Here is a chart of the aggregate usage in the US from 1900 on. Aggregate includes cement. Cement roads were rare in the first part of the last century.

Thau, I prefer to look at real observational data, not play models. And yours is a play model.

I tried but couldn't find a graph of air conditioning sales, but I know that in the SW air conditining was rare in homes in the 1950s and even rarer in the 1930s.

So, looking at real data, lets look at Santa Ana California over the past century.

"The average annual temperature in Santa Ana has increased by 7.5 degrees in less than a century, a spike largely attributed to urbanization which has seen the city&#8217;s population climb from less than 15,000 to more than 350,000. The temperature has gone from a low of 59.7 degrees in 1920 to 67.2 in 1997, with yearly temperatures near the all-time high as recently as 2006.

Urbanization raises the heat in O.C. - Sciencedude - OCRegister.com

Now during that time, Santa Ana and Orang county has turned from a rural farm county into a cemented up city. This means that there are more hot points NOW then there were a century ago. Your model doesn't show that

The picture below is of Orange Co. (called that for good reasons) in the early 1900s [/font]

[/font]
Thau, statistics is not the end all be all. If you are going to do models,, you need to think hard about how those models match what has happened. By the way, here is the chart of the temperature rise in Santa Ana.[/font]

In Santa Ana's case I want to know how you explain why CO2 was so darned effective at warming Santa Ana but not as effective at warming the world?

In the case of the bad siting and air conditioners, I want you to tell me how you know if the thermometer is on and is heating the thermometer. Clearly in the winter it will be on fewer days but how do you know what time of day the AC next to all these thermometers is on???

 

[grmorton]

Now the top map is 2000-2007, the middle map is 1980-2007 (note it is a longer time period) and the bottom map is 1900-2007.

The thing to note is that there are little blue dots that seem to move around, but in each case the dots only represent regions, not the entire globe.

Thau, first off, I didn't see you ever answer my question: What exactly, precisely is it that would falsify global warming for you? What data?

Now to your question of Greenland. I never said that the world was cooling. I said Greenland was cooling since 2000. You merely verified what I said, so I don't see what your issue is.

The key to global climate change is that overall the global average is increasing. If you have noted on any and all of the graphs there's spikes up and down and indeed there are regions where there's some cooling and regions where there's some warming.

It is warming only if we have measured the temperature correctly. That is what I keep pointing out. Even you admit that the siting is awful. Please explain in detail how one corrects for the air conditioner effect. How many degrees is it corrected by? How does one determine WHEN it needs correction and when it doesn't? Please explain this.

Note that in all cases except the top one that trend just keeps going up. If you look only at the 2000-2007 it looks like it's probably impossible to tell but it is not necessarily up or down, the 1980-2007 or the 1900-2007 is always up.

Now with each wider time window we get more insight into the trend. And again the important point is that we are talking global not local temperature trend.

Pretty pictures but all you did was verify what I said. That Greenland is now cooling. I will go further. If it is presently cooling why should we worry about it melting away? Your answer would seem to require that you absolutely know that the past will continue into the future. Isn't that what faith is? Belief in things unseen?

Just for fun, here is another MMTS with its pet air conditioner in the back ground.

Thau, it doesn't matter what your statistics say if there are so many badly sited stations that the entire enterprise is skewed towards warming in the latter part of last century. That air conditioner wasn't there in 1900.

 

[Gracchus]

grmorton: You have posted several pictures of stations "next to" air conditioners and parking lots. I would like to know how far a thermometer would have to be from these heat sources before it would be "reliable".

It should be simple to establish. Take temperature readings at various distances from air conditioners and parking lots. Now, the heat from radiation I would expect to vary according to the square-cube law. The temperature would be in inverse proportion to the cube of the distance, but of course other factors would be variable: The amount re-radiated from surrounding objects, for instance.

Then of course there would be convection. Warmer air would have a tendency to rise and so would not affect the thermometer reading as much unless the thermometer were above the source.

IN any case, the temperature read from the thermometer on any given day is less important than whether the thermometer shows a net rise in temperature over a period of years, decades and centuries. In this case, it is not the absolute temperature that is important, it is the trend.

Even so, it is not just the thermometers that indicate global warming. There are tree-rings, ice cores, and progressive desertification. The permafrost is melting, Arctic ice cover is vanishing, methane is bubbling out of the Arctic Ocean.

Now I realize, Mr. Morton, that you are not going to change your mind. No amount of scientific evidence will convince you. In this respect you are just like a creationist, or a holocaust denier.

 

[grmorton]

grmorton: You have posted several pictures of stations "next to" air conditioners and parking lots. I would like to know how far a thermometer would have to be from these heat sources before it would be "reliable".

Sigh, it would be nice if you could do some research for yourself. I have several times posted a link to the siting recommendations. You could have found out but I will give it to you. From

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf

Class 1 – Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19º). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

IN any case, the temperature read from the thermometer on any given day is less important than whether the thermometer shows a net rise in temperature over a period of years, decades and centuries. In this case, it is not the absolute temperature that is important, it is the trend.

Gracchus, that is only true if the perturbation in the temperature field is constant for the past 100 years. Look up at the post or two above this one and you will find a chart of cement use in the US roadways. You can see that the same thermal conditions didn't exist in 1900 as they do today. All of you who claim that it doesn't matter if there is a heat source so long as you can get the trend, forget something very very important. The perturbation must be constant. If it isn't, then you can't get the trend. I assert that the nation in 1900 had a whole lot less thermal pollution than it has today. If you disagree with that, please present your data.

Even so, it is not just the thermometers that indicate global warming. There are tree-rings, ice cores, and progressive desertification. The permafrost is melting, Arctic ice cover is vanishing, methane is bubbling out of the Arctic Ocean.

Sigh. How many times do I have to say that I believe that the world is warming. I don't think it is warming as much as is claimed, nor do I think it is caused largely by CO2. Shoot, NOAA proves that .3 deg C is due simply to the manipulations of the editors at GISS, but y'all keep ignoring this point. I doubt I can change your mind, but stare at the picture below for a while thinking about subtracting the 'corrected' data from the raw data.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

Now I realize, Mr. Morton, that you are not going to change your mind. No amount of scientific evidence will convince you. In this respect you are just like a creationist, or a holocaust denier.

Well, this ignores another fact. I have already CHANGED my mind. I used to believe in global warming. Up until about 2006/2007 I believed what I was told. Then I saw the air conditioners.

So, are you saying that I should never have looked at the pictures?

You have not answered the question about whether or not you think you can get a good temperature reading from thermometers next to air conditioners. I find no one here but Thau will even try to answer questions. Do you care to break the trend or will you ignore the question as you did earlier?

And while you are at it I will ask the question I ask YECs. What, if anything would falsify global warming in your mind? If there is nothing, you don't have a scientific belief. If you can tell me something,, then I will look to see if I can show it to you.


Here is an MMTS with about 20 pet air conditioners. Some are not shown in this view. The thing is surrounded by AC units.

Pleae tell me you think this is a good way to measure temperature. After all, I am supposed to sit down shut up and listen to the experts. Isn't that what you all want me to do? From that, I can only conclude that you all think the above is fantastic.

Why am I the idiot for thinking that this is a problem Gracchus? Please explain in detail.