The Holocene Deniers

[grmorton]

In point of fact the picture in the lower right corner was showing exactly what you are complaining about. Systematic offsets that flip back and forth. It showed that even with that in play it is possible that two data sets can still behave in parallel to show equivalent trends

No, that is not what I am complaining about. Your random number generated model lacks one very important fact, on average over a month or a year, the two measures move the same direction. In your case that wouldn't be the case, they would move randomly.

The fact that there is no necessary correlation between points actually makes my point stronger. But even so it really isn't a bad example because all the data points were seeded to be normally distributed about the SAME VALUE with the SAME STANDARD DEVIATION. Ergo, in a sense, the only "differentiators" before I threw in the "offsets" were due to the random distribution around that mean and standard deviation.

No, it makes your case weaker, very much weaker. First off the daily temperatures differences are NOT randomly distributed, contrary to your claim. As I have shown over and over, there are offsets for years, where the predominance is that one town is hotter than the other and then the temperature difference will reverse. Your model doesn't capture that. As I said, you claim that your model matches reality it doesn't.

Secondly, Thau, you seem to be under the egotistical assumption that I came here to debate YOU. I didn't. I came here to show the crap raw data. YOu chose in one of your earliest posts to talk about what I would say and thus divert the thread. You want to talk about irrelevant pH in your lab and now you want to talk about an irrelevant model. Can't you actually talk about the the physics? of why is there a seasonal variation in the magnitude of the temperature difference between two nearby towns? Statistics ain't everything.

So, in fact, I have rather proven the point. It is also a direct analogue to the imaginary scenario you developed of two thermometers near each other but reading with "offsets".

Prove to me that your points averaged over 365 days would march in sync. They wouldn't and you know it.

What I developed here was a mathematically robust version of your example. The fact that you couldn't do that to make your point, I don't even begin to understand.

What you developed is self delusional.

Unfortunately you've run up against someone who can debate somewhat knowledgably about how data is dealt with in a real-world scientific manner.

No, I have not run up against anyone like that in you. I have run up against a person who would rather talk about everything except the data--1. what I would argue. 2. pH in your lab. 3. A useless non-representative model.

Unfortunately you cannot "bully" statistics. They are what they are.

And you can't seem to get it through your head that when there is a 4 deg error bar you can't claim that the world has warmed by 1.1 degree. Your lack of knowledge of that very fundamental statistical point is telling of your knowledge.

But, don't be egotistical. I have never claimed that I came here to debate you. At every point I have told you that I wouldn't let you divert me. And I won't. If you say something interesting then I might comment. Otherwise your stuff is not very interesting.

Would you care to explain why every winter the temperature differences between Monticello and Brookhaven City MS increase in magnitude? Statistics can't answer this question, Thau. Don't hide behind the skirt of statistics cause it won't help you.

Care to explain this? Nah, I didn't think so.

 

[grmorton]

Frank, you can spell out the links.

 

[grmorton]

Paul Drallos doesn't appear to be a climatologist but a theoretical physicist with a career in plasma physics and computer software manufacturing why should I be interested in what he has to say about climatology?

Curiosity doesn't seem to be one of your most used qualities.

AGW is settled science amongst climatologists does it really matter if a plasma physicist doesn't like that?

there is that "sit down; shut up; don't stir things up; just believe; don't think for yourself" mentallity shining through again. You display a lot of that Baggins.

Don't you have a spare bone of curiosity, a single doubt? Shoot, I never met a YEC that didn't privately express some doubt about their views---seems that you out do the YECs.

Mr Morton is certainly not interested in objective evidence as his hand waving dismissal of statistics that undermine his argument shows, he rejects AGW for political, rather than scientific, reasons and the same is almost certainly true of you Mr Lovell and it is certainly true of Mr Drallos who is a contributer to the Republican Party.

Ah,the argumentum ad hominem, an informal logical fallacy. Baggins, I swear your logic is really bad. Digging out my old logic book from grad school (I did philosophy.)

From
Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic, (New York: MacMillan 1972), p. 74-75
The phrase argumentum ad hominem translates literally as 'argument directed to the man.' It is susceptible to two interpretations, whose interrelationship will be explained after the two are discussed separately. We may designate this fallacy on the first interpretation as the 'abusive' variety. It is committed when, instead of trying to disprove the ruth of what is asserted, one attacks the man who made the assertion. Thus it may be argued that Bacon's philosophy is untrustworthy because he was removed form his chancellorship for dishonesty. This argument is fallacious, because the personal character of a man is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what he says or the correctness or incorrectness of his argument. To argue that proposals are bad or assertions false because they are proposed or asserted by Communists (or by Hippies or by doves or by hawks or by extremists [or I might add here, people who donate to republicans--grm]) is to argue fallaciously and to be guilty of committing an argumentum ad hominem (abusive). This kind of argument is sometimes said to commit the 'Genetic Fallacy,' for obvious reasons."



Yes siree, Baggins, your illogic shines through again. You have illogically and erroneously argued that if Drallos gave money to someone it means their argument is false. You are saying a variation on that old saying, "All Cretins are liars". Only in your case it is "All Republican Donars are liars." That, as Copi says is an illogical argument. Try again--get an education.

For the record, so you can't throw that at me, I am a democrat. It is a matter of public record here in Texas.

Baggins, would you care to explain why the temperature difference varies with the seasons in Brookhaven City MS minus Monticello MS.

I am not going to hold my breath waiting for you to address this. It is so much easier to commit logical fallacies and think you have dealt with a person.

Baggins, I am editing this again to add this: Why don't you deal with the argument of Drallos, rather than dismissing him because he doesn't share your political beliefs????

"So, is global warming taking place? Over the last ten years, there has been global cooling. The last hundred years has seen warming. The last 2000 years has been cooling, The last 10,000 years has been cooling. The last 200,000 years has been warming. It's a matter of choosing a time-scale. A 30-year trend was long-enough to prompt fears of a coming Ice Age (which turned out to be short-lived.) Then, after only a ten-year warming trend, new concerns about catastrophic warming began (and that warming only continued for another ten years, to 1998). Now we are ten years into a new cooling trend. Clearly, a few tens of years are not enough to establish a long-term trend. " http://home.comcast.net/~pdrallos131681/CO2/co2.html

And he has a picture of solar irradiance I would like to have you, the user of argumentums ad hominem, to comment on

Somehow I doubt you will present a cogent argument against his views, preferring instead to be bigoted towards those of differing political views.

 

[grmorton]

Glenn wanted a bare-bones, hard core discussion of data. I have provided that to him.

I think I will speak for myself, thank you very much. I came here to show the data, something you don't want to comment on.

I do dearly wish people would get the whole story.

Really? So why haven't you been out there talking about the heat sources next to the thermometers??? Why haven't you been posting the raw data? When you do that, then I will believe the above statement, otherwise, I will view it as just so much self-serving fluff.

Care to explain why Okemah gets as much as 6 deg F hotter than Okmulgee only about 20 miles away? For a decade?

Naw, I didn't think you would comment on that.

But keep fooling yourself that you really want everyone to get the full story. That of course, is why you spoke of pH in your lab.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I think I will speak for myself, thank you very much. I came here to show the data, something you don't want to comment on.

Glenn, I am working overtime here to not get nasty again, but I think this statement here is a gross, insulting, misrepresentation of what I've been doing all along. I have commented repeatedly on your points, you often ignore mine.

Let's look at what has occurred here for proof of that point.

[FONT=&quot]So here’s some of the items I’ve noted:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In post # 166 I first utilized a chi-square test to assess some of the count data Glenn had introduced. It became quite apparenty by post # 168 that Glenn may have no idea of what the chi squared test is or even how theoretical distributions are calculated for a chi square test.[/FONT]

Did you simply count them? Did you look at the 365 day running average?

and Post # 169

In your chi squared test what is your expected theoretical frequency distribution? Where did you get it? Are you merely testing for Gaussianicity? If so, I fail to see how one can have your result and my count at the same time. We need to get to the bottom of it.

Now I’m not a statistician, so I’m sure I could have been mistaken in my use of the chi square. But clearly Glenn was unable to address the issue even from the fundamentals of what a chi square test is. And was further unable to show me any errors I had made.

But then later in post # 182 Glenn states:

You just illustrated the problem. If the noise is greater than the signal, it gets very hard to see the signal. the signal in this case is 1.1 deg F of global warming, but the noise is 5 degrees (using your example above). I will never be convinced that it makes sense to say that the globe has warmed by 1.1 deg +/- 5 degrees..

However I was able to, in Post # 184 show how a trend could be measured statistically with a noisy signal. Later I responded in Post #200 how the t-test can be used to differentiate two populations each with a standard deviation of 2 degrees but whose mean only differed by 0.5degrees.

This appears to have been ignored by Glenn.

In post # 205 Glenn tells me:

If you think a temperature system which measures the temperature only within the accuracy of +/-6 degrees is capable of measuring a global temperature rise of 1 deg F you clearly have some work to do in statistics.

Yet he doesn’t ever actually address the statistics that I present other than to proclaim them ex cathedra to be in error. One would think if my statistics were in error he could show that using statistics. But so far in the debate I have been the only one to assess the data using statistics which is precisely what statistics are for.

In post # 215 Glenn reiterates the clear fact that either he has been unable to understand or has simply ignored the discussion around confidence intervals or the t-test.

So in Post #219 I have to address the issue yet again, with a description of how the confidence interval differs from the standard deviation. At that time I also provided numerous references he could check out if he liked to do so. In Post #221 and Post #222 I gave two very clear examples where the means of two data sets which each had standard deviations much larger than the actual difference in means and how the t-Test could still differentiate the means with statistical significance.

This too was ignored. He moved onto the GISS homogeneity filter. So he made repeated claims about what numbers can tell you and what they can’t and I showed what statistics is capable of and he simply ignored it. Repeatedly.

In post # 254 Glenn is back to making statements about the limitations on interpreting trends in noisy data and, again, limiting the conversation to standard deviations only.

As usual I responded in Post #255 to show him the difference between an ANOVA F-test of a trend and the noise in the data. I even provided a link to trend estimation.

As usual I had generated a rather large data set and proved my point using statistics.

Glenn then made the statement:

More data of the same variance makes it impossible to increase the confidence.

This is simply wrong. I went on to show him how confidence intervals are calculated in Post # 270

This was ignored by Glenn.


TREND ANALYSES:
Anyone who’s read even more than a couple of things about global warming realizes that it isn’t (and never really has been) about the ABSOLUTE temperature measurement. It is and always has been about trends in the temperature. To that end I wanted to get back to actually understanding how “bad” data measurements could still result in “correct” trends. Or certainly to address Glenn’s larger issue that bad thermometers cannot give insight into larger trends.

So I did what no one else on this board has done and I ran an experiment using a measurement system that I had around and had several different versions of. This I did in Post # 309 and proved my point, both graphically and with statistical robustness.

Glenn responded in Post #310 by calling my example “irrelevant”.

Later in Post # 340 Glenn states:

Any one who believes one can get a 1 degree signal out of a 4 deg SD is also making a freshman level error. And that is what you are doing.

Now this is after I have described the difference between confidence intervals and standard deviations a couple of times. I don’t know if he’s ignoring or unable to understand what I have posted and the numerous links I have provided.

So I had to go over it, yet again, on Post #341

In an earlier post Glenn had complained that my interpretation of a trend from multiple repeats at one “time”stamp was not real world, that each measurement was a one-off (Post #266). So I re-ran the data set using a scatterplot in Post # 345

This too was ignored by Glenn.

Glenn then made a point in Post #348 about two hypothetical thermometers which had offsets from each other that flipped back and forth and how this was problematic.

So I responded by generating a data set with both significant noise and an offset that swung back and forth for periods of time to address that point and show how a trend can be generated. I did this in Post # 350 .
[FONT=&quot]
This was decreed by Glenn to be a “silly” example in Post # 351 . Despite the fact that it addressed his example directly, mathematically and statistically, and more importantly introduced the very important concept that indeed the trend is what is important in [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]these discussions.

Now at all points along I've been very clear I am not a statistician, but I am a degreed professional research scientist and I am in the process of learning and utilizing statistics. If there was any problem with the statistical calculation Glenn could have at any point addressed it using statistical and mathematical formalisms.

The fact that he never did and on a couple of occasions was demonstrably mistaken about how the various statistical tests worked indicate to me there is some underlying issue that is play. I cannot figure out what it is or why a professional like Glenn would respond the way he does.

But my favorite post was # 307
[/FONT]
In which Glenn basically comes right out and tells me he's going to ignore some of my points:

So, with that out of the way (I didn't even read your second post), I am going to discuss...

 

[grmorton]

Christopher Scotese is a geologist who is famous for making maps of the way the ancient earth was configured. Bernier is an expert on ancient atmospheres. There is a picture which combines Bernier's work with Scotese's which shows the temperature history of the earth as well.

Notice that the earth has had 2800 ppm of CO2 throughout most of its history. Yet the global warming hysteriacs say we should fear 500 ppm. What lunacy. All of you are like YECs who simply deny geological data. Not only are the AGW folk Holocene deniers, they are also science deniers, Carboniferous deniers. Like the YECs, data doesn't matter.

 

[thaumaturgy]

As I said, you claim that your model matches reality it doesn't.

I wish you'd supply a mathematical justification for your points. Just once in this conversation. But I think my last post established some information about how much of the mathematics you are tracking on.

Secondly, Thau, you seem to be under the egotistical assumption that I came here to debate YOU.

No, I am not under that assumption, Glenn. But considering I'm one of the few left standing and I'm one of the few here with the cojones (mathematics) to support my stance while discussing data, then I think you are left with little choice.

I didn't. I came here to show the crap raw data.

In order to decree something "crap" you need to really establish it using statistics or even something marginally mathematical.

You want to talk about irrelevant pH in your lab and now you want to talk about an irrelevant model.

They are only irrelevant if you are unable to understand the rather clear explanations I have given.

Can't you actually talk about the the physics?

I have done so. I also know that "talking physics" about noise as if it were signal is what a freshman student does. That is well below you.

But I can't get you to discuss statistics beyond a high school stats class level!

And you can't seem to get it through your head that when there is a 4 deg error bar you can't claim that the world has warmed by 1.1 degree. Your lack of knowledge of that very fundamental statistical point is telling of your knowledge.

Wow. I mean wow. How many times do I have to show you the F-test, t-test, ANOVA, and confidence intervals?

But, don't be egotistical. I have never claimed that I came here to debate you.

No, you want to bully someone who doesn't know how data is handled by the big boys in science. You think your simple high-school level misunderstanding of anecdotal data is going to wow people. Then you run up against someone who understands how data is dealt with and you sound to me like you are on the verge of picking up your ball and running home.

At every point I have told you that I wouldn't let you divert me. And I won't.

Hey, if you're having trouble understanding statistics or how data is dealt with, don't stress it.

You remind me a lot of myself back in my first postdoc. I was intimidated by statistics and didn't like them so I avoided them like the plague. But my boss, a real scientist, forced me to run f-tests on all my correlations. A later boss, a VP of R&D at a major international chemical manufacturer, forced all of us in the R&D group to learn and use statistics in our data to make sure we weren't making crap data and drawing unwarranted conclusions.

Those were hard lessons for me as I came up through the ranks of science, but I guarantee you, a firm knowledge of statistics will help you understand this data.

THEN we can deal with the data more like how the real climatologists deal with it! (ie not anecdotally but in large, gridded averages that are backed up by additional data from unrelated sources!)

 

[grmorton]

Glenn, I am working overtime here to not get nasty again, but I think this statement here is a gross, insulting, misrepresentation of what I've been doing all along. I have commented repeatedly on your points, you often ignore mine.

I don't care what you are working overtime on. You are the one who started this thread off on a nasty note, not me. And you admitted it.

Let's look at what has occurred here for proof of that point.

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
Now I’m not a statistician,

You sure aren't.

However I was able to, in Post # 184 show how a trend could be measured statistically with a noisy signal. Later I responded in Post #200 how the t-test can be used to differentiate two populations each with a standard deviation of 2 degrees but whose mean only differed by 0.5degrees.

This appears to have been ignored by Glenn.

Irrelevant. that is why I ignored it. If you want to do make believe science then be my guest.

YOu don't seem to know that if the error of the data is greater than the signal, statistics can't conclude that the earth has warmed. That is freshman level statistics, and you flunk.

In post # 205 Glenn tells me:

Yet he doesn’t ever actually address the statistics that I present other than to proclaim them ex cathedra to be in error. One would think if my statistics were in error he could show that using statistics. But so far in the debate I have been the only one to assess the data using statistics which is precisely what statistics are for.

I have over and over and over and over explained why statistics isn't the end all and be all of anything. Physics is what drives the weather, not statistics. You can call me whatever name you wish to call me but you can't discuss physics. You have a bunch of sycophantic friends here whocommit logical fallacies, like those condemned by Irving Copi, but the reality is that I am the only one posting REAL OBSERVATIONAL DATA. You post make believe irrelevant statistical models that don't even match reality.

In post # 215 Glenn reiterates the clear fact that either he has been unable to understand or has simply ignored the discussion around confidence intervals or the t-test.

I don't believe I admitted a thing like that. I have said that you are not addressing physics, and you are not. You won't explain why in winter the temperature difference between two Mississippi towns increases in magnitude.

This too was ignored.

As I said, Thau, I am not going to get into an irrelevancy, a red herring. No point in that. People can understand the charts I post and the pictures I post of thermometers next to air conditioners. You can't seem to understand the problem, much less deal with it.

He moved onto the GISS homogeneity filter.

So you think cheating is good in science? Below is a picture showing the homogeniety cheating where a cooling station is turned into a warming station. And you think this is good science. Shame on you Thau. It is crap science. It is play science where one makes the data say what one wants it to say.

So he made repeated claims about what numbers can tell you and what they can’t and I showed what statistics is capable of and he simply ignored it. Repeatedly.

In post # 254 Glenn is back to making statements about the limitations on interpreting trends in noisy data and, again, limiting the conversation to standard deviations only.

Thau can't seem to understand that if the noise is 2x the signal, one can't see the signal. This seems beyond his ken.

As usual I had generated a rather large data set and proved my point using statistics.

ignoring physics.



Glenn then made the statement:

TREND ANALYSES:

Anyone who’s read even more than a couple of things about global warming realizes that it isn’t (and never really has been) about the ABSOLUTE temperature measurement. It is and always has been about trends in the temperature. To that end I wanted to get back to actually understanding how “bad” data measurements could still result in “correct” trends. Or certainly to address Glenn’s larger issue that bad thermometers cannot give insight into larger trends.

It is also about trends in editing. You know, making the data say what you want it to say.

You never have responded in a cogent fashion to the fact that the editors at GISS add more heat to the modern thermometers. You ignore that, thau. Why? Does it offend your belief system?

So I did what no one else on this board has done and I ran an experiment using a measurement system that I had around and had several different versions of. This I did in Post # 309 and proved my point, both graphically and with statistical robustness.

That didn't match reality. You can't show as I asked that your random model will move in synch over 365 days as does the real data in the real observational data as reported by where you, AKA Hagiograph demanded I get my raw data.

Glenn responded in Post #310 by calling my example “irrelevant”.

I stand by that. It IS irrelevant. And I will also stand by the fact that putting a heat source next to an air conditioner is a bias to the entire global warming thermometer measurment system.mt_stignatius_coop2

Go look at this thermometer next to an air conditioner. It seems that you don't care that the climatologists allow their thermometers to be next to air conditioner exhaust fans. What silliness for you to claim that statistics can overcome this.

Later in Post # 340 Glenn states:

Now this is after I have described the difference between confidence intervals and standard deviations a couple of times. I don’t know if he’s ignoring or unable to understand what I have posted and the numerous links I have provided.

So I had to go over it, yet again, on Post #341

Thau, you seem to think that statistics trumps physics. It doesn't.

Nice attempt at diverting me Thau. You really don't want to look at the raw data do you? You still haven't explained why in the winter in Brookhaven-Monticello MS the magnitude of the temperature difference increases dramatically. Nor have you explained how you would correct for that problem.

Physics doesn't matter to either you or Baggins. Baggins said that he wasn't interested in what a physicist said. He should be.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Care to explain why Okemah gets as much as 6 deg F hotter than Okmulgee only about 20 miles away? For a decade?

Naw, I didn't think you would comment on that.

Wrong again! I'll comment on it!

I'm getting tired of downloading all this data so I opted to go for MONTHLY averages rather than daily averages. Here's how the two stations line up:

The top graph is month-by-month station for Okmulgee plotted against the same month for Okemah. It's shocking how well they line up. The slope is 1.00! (For the mathematically challenged that means that the monthly values for one station are just about the same as the other for any given data point since 1895!

The little red line is actually a 95% confidence interval for the fit which is significantly statistically non-zero. The R^2 for the fit is 0.995

And just for consistency's sake I did a histogram of the DIFFERENCES on a month-by-month side-by-side comparison. Indeed there's a shocking 0.4degree overall positive bias between the two.

It's almost more than I can imagine. The spread on the data is equally shocking with outliers as far apart as 4 or 6 degrees!

I think we should disband the entire National Weather Service if they can't measure two stations any closer together than 0.4degrees for more than a century's worth of data.

It's a shame.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You sure aren't.

All I ask is that you MAN UP AND PROVE IT, Glenn.

Be a man. Prove I am wrong on my statistics. Prove it. (I know it's hard to believe but I would welcome a correction to my math! I'm not claiming perfection here, but I won't have you tell me I'm wrong on the math without proof.)

Irrelevant. that is why I ignored it. If you want to do make believe science then be my guest.

YOu don't seem to know that if the error of the data is greater than the signal, statistics can't conclude that the earth has warmed. That is freshman level statistics, and you flunk.

Man up and PROVE IT, Glenn. PROVE IT.

I've shown you my math and I've given you more than ample citations to check my calculations.

PROVE I AM WRONG.

I have over and over and over and over explained why statistics isn't the end all and be all of anything. Physics is what drives the weather, not statistics

And you interpret noise as valid data without any understanding of the noise.

Garbage in, garbage out.

You have a bunch of sycophantic friends here whocommit logical fallacies

You mean like my friends in the statistics books and at the NIST who provide the stats basics?

, like those condemned by Irving Copi, but

the reality is that I am the only one posting REAL OBSERVATIONAL DATA. You post make believe irrelevant statistical models that don't even match reality.

Actually that is demonstrably wrong. I have posted models and data to prove my point, but I've also posted page after page after page after page of data that you have pointed to.

I don't believe I admitted a thing like that.

Sorry but I hot-linked all those posts so you could see what was said. The record states what it states.

I have said that you are not addressing physics, and you are not.

Actually what I teach my undergrads is that if you want to draw conclusions draw it on the signal, not the noise. Be aware that noise will always be there.

As I said, Thau, I am not going to get into an irrelevancy, a red herring. No point in that.

Glenn, you want people to cling to your every single word and when people don't reply to every single jot and tittle of your post you demand to know why. Then you blithely ignore what I am saying. I don't understand that.

People can understand the charts I post and the pictures I post of thermometers next to air conditioners. You can't seem to understand the problem, much less deal with it.

Well, of course I have addressed that point. I am not happy with it. But again, I am also aware that in the real world data has noise and bad pieces. I've shown my points and supported them as well.

So you think cheating is good in science?

Prove it is cheating, Glenn. You like to accuse and talk big. But I so seldom see you prove it. This topic, the homogeneity filter was dealt with and I showed how NASA applies it and why they apply it.

Thau can't seem to understand that if the noise is 2x the signal, one can't see the signal. This seems beyond his ken.

I don't think I need to prove the "confidence interval" concept to you again. I think any readers who are left are more than capable of seeing what I have written repeatedly. I do highly recommend that if you have a problem with confidence intervals you google them and show me where I am in error.

But if you prefer to insult as opposed to prove your point then I'm more than happy to let the record speak for itself.

Thau, you seem to think that statistics trumps physics. It doesn't.

If you think it valid to complain about data then be prepared to have the data dealt with as real scientists deal with data. If you interpret a noise as a signal you can do all the physics on it you want...you will still wind up drawing a crap conclusion.

Nice attempt at diverting me Thau. You really don't want to look at the raw data do you?

Misrepresentation will not divert me. I will continue to look at your data, no matter how many double-stations you pull up. I have done so repeatedly. Just saying I haven't doesn't change the facts.

Physics doesn't matter to either you or Baggins. Baggins said that he wasn't interested in what a physicist said. He should be.

Actually the real physics under discussion here is one you seem to ignore repeatedly: the CO[sub]2[/sub] bonds absorb in the IR region, which makes it a great greenhouse gas. We have measurable data proving we are responsible for no small part of the recent increase in carbon into the atmosphere ([sup]14[/sup]C isotope analysis) and the models I've seen seem to place a large forcing function value on CO[sub]2[/sub].

QED.

If you wish to address any "physics", Glenn, I highly recommend you address some of that.

But I'm more than happy to continue down this pointless anecdotal data fun-time. I'm getting some good experience with the R stats programming.

(btw: I'm simply shocked at the jarring difference between the two Oklahoma stations! 0.4degreesF! Wow. That's amazing.)

 

[grmorton]

Wrong again! I'll comment on it!

I'm getting tired of downloading all this data so I opted to go for MONTHLY averages rather than daily averages. Here's how the two stations line up:

Life is so tough for you. You have to down load data. boohoo. I am so sorry that your life is so tough. Golly, we should all take up a collection. You have to down load data. I have to deal with cancer. Golly your life is tough.

The top graph is month-by-month station for Okmulgee plotted against the same month for Okemah. It's shocking how well they line up. The slope is 1.00! (For the mathematically challenged that means that the monthly values for one station are just about the same as the other for any given data point since 1895!

I don't know what you did to your data but here is my data, downloaded from the cdiac.

Okemah is on the x-axis and Okmulgee is on the y-axis. The slope is about .8 as it should be givne the plot below. It isn't a slope of 1. I don't know what you did to the data but you screwed it up. Given the Okemah minus Okmulgee plot, which shows that Okemah is 3 deg F hotter than Okmulgee, your plot with a slope of 1 is quite erroneous. If the slope is 1 then Okemah minus Okmulgee ought to be ZERO, but of course it looks like this, and it isn't ZERO. You clearly are mishandling the data.

I think we should disband the entire National Weather Service if they can't measure two stations any closer together than 0.4degrees for more than a century's worth of data.

That might not be a bad idea. I think I could agree with this. They can't seem to keep their thermometers away from air conditioners.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Life is so tough for you. You have to down load data. boohoo. I am so sorry that your life is so tough. Golly, we should all take up a collection. You have to down load data. I have to deal with cancer. Golly your life is tough.

I actually feel quite bad for you with cancer. I honestly do.

It is part of the reason I find it hard to be extremely harsh with you. But you do tax me in that area. However my parents raised me to be better than I have acted in the past.

While I do not have a terminal disease I do have a life-long illness that I will not discuss here and that I have battled extensively for decades.

My personal sadness for you aside, I do not see what it has to do with processing the data or the topic at hand.

I have downloaded the data right along with you time after time after time. At times you accused me of not downloading it and processing it, but you were incorrect.

I don't know what you did to your data but here is my data, downloaded from the cdiac.

I downloaded the MONTHLY data from the same site you use. At the top you can choose the "monthly data" server. (U.S. Historical Climatology Network - NDP-019)

Okemah is on the x-axis and Okmulgee is on the y-axis. It isn't a slope of 1.

Well, when I look at your graph I note the x-axis goes up to 100 and in the monthly averages there are no 100 degree numbers. Perhaps in daily, but there are clearly too few points on your graph to be daily.

It almost looks like you are doing annual? When I look at annual averages of the monthly data I also don't see any values near 100. Precisely what are you using here?

I don't know what you did to the data but you screwed it up. Given the Okemah minus Okmulgee plot, which shows that Okemah is 3 deg F hotter than Okmulgee, your plot with a slope of 1 is quite erroneous. If the slope is 1 then Okemah minus Okmulgee ought to be ZERO, but of course it looks like this, and it isn't ZERO. You clearly are mishandling the data.

If I am mishandling the data at least my data points fell within the range of available data points in the my data set.

Again, my data set is the MONTHLY average temp for both sites:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/sasserv/OK346638_4938.csv
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/sasserv/OK346670_3090.csv

Please tell me which data you are using.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Wow, Glenn, I keep looking at this data and comparing it to both the daily and the monthly data and I cannot see what you have graphed here. It looks like you've graphed ANNUAL averages (?) because there's only about 100 data points on this graph, but when I average the monthly data to get an ANNUAL value I sure don't come up with anything around 100degF.

In fact for ANNUAL values the highest average I get is about 64degF.

Now if you are talking MONTHLY then you need to explain why you only have about 100 data points instead of the approximately 1300+ data points that are in the MONTHLY record.

Even then those cases where the monthly average is around 90 the other station is right in there close by.

If you are dealing with DAILY data then you have a few that are well above 90. But again, I don't understand why you only have about 100 data points when a DAILY record would be in excess of 20,000 data points.

I really am scratching my head as to what you are graphing here.

 

[Baggins]

Curiosity doesn't seem to be one of your most used qualities.

I'm curious about what experts in their fields think. I am not that curious about what the right wing CEO of a Computer Software company thinks about a field he has no training in.

If he comes up with something that the experts in their field haven't I am sure they will incorporate it it.

there is that "sit down; shut up; don't stir things up; just believe; don't think for yourself" mentallity shining through again. You display a lot of that Baggins.

What really bugs me is that people like Drallos and you pose as skeptical scientists with scientific objections to the consensus.

That is bunkum, you are both right wingers with political objections to some of the perceived solutions to AGW. Unable to think of any politically acceptable way to address the biggest problem facing humanity you attack science.

Frankly that, and by extension Drallos , disgusts me.

Don't you have a spare bone of curiosity, a single doubt? Shoot, I never met a YEC that didn't privately express some doubt about their views---seems that you out do the YECs.

I have little idea to what extent humans are altering the climate of their planet as there is no settled consensus amongst the experts as to that, and I doubt there ever will be, but they think it is significant enough to tackle and that is good enough to me.

I don't expect a climatologist to tell me how to optimally process seismic data or reject plate tectonics and I return that favour. You, for political rather than scientific reasons, are unable to extend this professional courtesy.

The rest is your post isn't really worth commenting on it doesn't alter the central fact that you have ceased to be a scientist, in my eyes, when you allowed your politics to over rule science, you are no different from a YEC excepting that they allow religious rather than political belief to over rule science.

 

[Baggins]

Notice that the earth has had 2800 ppm of CO2 throughout most of its history. Yet the global warming hysteriacs say we should fear 500 ppm. What lunacy. All of you are like YECs who simply deny geological data. Not only are the AGW folk Holocene deniers, they are also science deniers, Carboniferous deniers. Like the YECs, data doesn't matter.

You have been told many times that it doesn't matter what happened in the past what matters is how the current changes will affect human society.

No one thinks AGW will destroy the world

No one thinks AGW will destroy life on earth

I doubt anyone even thinks that AGW will wipeout humanity

People are rightly concerned that AGW will have a negative impact on human civilisation and that this negative impact may large.

I am amazed that you seem unable to take on board such a simple point . Your whole OP was based on not being able to grasp this and after 30 odd pages you still don't seem to have cottoned on to the fact that " Things were a lot worse in the past" is not an argument to do nothing now.

 

[grmorton]

I actually feel quite bad for you with cancer. I honestly do.

It is part of the reason I find it hard to be extremely harsh with you. But you do tax me in that area. However my parents raised me to be better than I have acted in the past.

Get harsh if you want. But don't whinge about how hard it is to download data. That was what I was trying to get across to you. Whinges like that don't sound like you have a rough life.

I have downloaded the data right along with you time after time after time. At times you accused me of not downloading it and processing it, but you were incorrect.

I downloaded the MONTHLY data from the same site you use. At the top you can choose the "monthly data" server. (U.S. Historical Climatology Network - NDP-019)

I am downloading the DAILY data, not the monthly. The monthly data isn't raw. See USHCN ORNL/CDIAC-87 NDP-019

So, you are using data that has already been MANIPULATED. Notice the difference in your monthly scattergram vs the daily raw scattergram I posted. So, if you have been doing your analysis on data that has already been sanitized, your statistics are worthless for another reason.

Well, when I look at your graph I note the x-axis goes up to 100 and in the monthly averages there are no 100 degree numbers. Perhaps in daily, but there are clearly too few points on your graph to be daily.

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. The problem Thau is that you can go cherry picking for data that has been edited to make it all look fine and dandy but it says nothing about the quality of the real observations. You are not using observational data.

It almost looks like you are doing annual? When I look at annual averages of the monthly data I also don't see any values near 100. Precisely what are you using here?

What I have ALWAYS said I was using. RAW DATA. Monthly data isn't RAW. U.S. Historical Climatology Network - NDP-070 At this site you have about 10 seconds to scroll down the page to the map and choose a state before it redirects you elsewhere. I don't know why the page acts that way.

If I am mishandling the data at least my data points fell within the range of available data points in the my data set.

Again, my data set is the MONTHLY average temp for both sites:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/sasserv/OK346638_4938.csv
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/sasserv/OK346670_3090.csv

Please tell me which data you are using.

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.

 

[grmorton]

You have been told many times that it doesn't matter what happened in the past what matters is how the current changes will affect human society.

Really? It doesn't matter? So all of geological science doesn't matter? Wow what an attitude. This is a case of you getting to ignore what it is that you want to ignore so that you can continue with your belief system.

No one thinks AGW will destroy the world

If by the world, one means the human race, Thaumaturgy thinks it might. I asked him if he would outline the scenario that would kill humans but not rats and robins, but he didn't avail himself of the opportunity.

No one thinks AGW will destroy life on earth



I doubt anyone even thinks that AGW will wipeout humanity

Your hero Thaumaturgy thinks that. Post 302 he said "I believe what has been said (at least by me) relatively consistently is that the earth will likely not be "destroyed" and even life will go on like it has before. Just that humans, being a single species may not be able to adapt."

Would you care to admit that you are wrong here? Naw I didn't think so.

People are rightly concerned that AGW will have a negative impact on human civilisation and that this negative impact may large.

I am amazed that you seem unable to take on board such a simple point . Your whole OP was based on not being able to grasp this and after 30 odd pages you still don't seem to have cottoned on to the fact that " Things were a lot worse in the past" is not an argument to do nothing now.

This from the guy who said that his reason for not reading Dallos was that Dallos contributed to the republicans. What a laugh.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I am downloading the DAILY data, not the monthly. The monthly data isn't raw. See USHCN ORNL/CDIAC-87 NDP-019

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.

So, if you have been doing your analysis on data that has already been sanitized, your statistics are worthless for another reason.

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

Yeah, that is why what I am using is better than what you are using.

Yet you appear to be "clipping" the data somehow. I mean 20,000 data points looks very differentfrom 100 data points.

Anyone can look at that.

You are using manipulated averages rather than looking at the raw data. The problem Thau is that you can go cherry picking for data

"Cherry picking"? Well, please explain to me how you can post 20,000 data points in the form of only 100 data points?

That sounds a bit like something got cherry picked.

What I have ALWAYS said I was using. RAW DATA. Monthly data isn't RAW. U.S. Historical Climatology Network - NDP-070 At this site you have about 10 seconds to scroll down the page to the map and choose a state before it redirects you elsewhere. I don't know why the page acts that way.

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

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

No, the fact that you have somehow plotted 20,000 data points as if were 100 data points says you have done some manipulation of the data.

20,000 >> 100

 

[thaumaturgy]

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.

 

[Frank Lovell]

Paul Drallos doesn't appear to be a climatologist but a theoretical physicist with a career in plasma physics and computer software manufacturing why should I be interested in what he has to say about climatology?...

Oooo...you are so sharp, Mr. "Baggins" (and brave too -- writing under a pseudonym) -- and right, there's no physics involved in climate dynamics, and physicists have nothing common with climatologists respecting what empirical science is, how it works (and doesn't work), what scientific theories are (and aren't), and how scientific hypotheses are (and are not) empirically corroborated (or falsified). Thus indeed you have no reason -- none whatsoever -- to be interested in what Drallos (or me, or Glenn, or any Republican) has to say, just as I no longer have any interest -- none, zero, zip, zilch, nada, squat -- in anything you have to say on any subject -- after all, you are not a contributor to the Republican Party (nor a climatologist either, for that matter), what can you possibly know that'd be of value to a mere physical-organic chemist and libertarian Republican like me?).

...AGW is settled science amongst climatologists does it really matter if a plasma physicist doesn't like that?...

I respectfully disagree, but very well, think what you like.

...Mr Morton is certainly not interested in objective evidence as his hand waving dismissal of statistics that undermine his argument shows, he rejects AGW for political, rather than scientific, reasons and the same is almost certainly true of you Mr Lovell and it is certainly true of Mr Drallos who is a contributer to the Republican Party.

I respectfully disagree, but very well, you are not only entitled to your own opinion but indeed you have a duty to yourself to reject my or Glenn's or Drallos' or anybody else's perspectives in favor of whatever makes the most genuine be good sense to you (just as I do for my own self and Glenn does for his own self).

-- Frank