Do humans contribute to climate change substantially?

[kerplunk]

Guam said:

kerplunk said:

No I won't do that - better things to do with my time. I see it used all over the net by warmists and sceptics alike and never seen any concerns raised about it's veracity. I think it's you that should do the work to support your claims.

So basically you have no clue what the various settings do to the trendline or why, but insist on posting them as though they mean something significant?

This is why they were banned in the first place.

I don't know how many tools work - are you saying there's something wrong with my use of the settings?

[turbobloke]

Bedazzled said:

Interesting criticism of Miskolczi's paper here

Except that for the most part it resembles vD&F as it falls into the trap of arguing theory against theory when data is needed to tell good science from bad science. Opening with some reasoning by assertion is a bad sign, there's a comfort blanket approach to what is said. This is one of the two main criticisms of Miskolczi which preceded the NVAP-M water vapour surprise result this year. When additional accurate data is available in future, if carbon dioxide <and> water vapour consistently increase together, compared to the apparent - and yet to be confirmed - decline over the last ~10 years in water vapour, then I'll join those who view the Miskolczi approach as flawed. Even then, this won't mean that IPCC are correct in the 2nd Law violation, just that one alternative has been ruled out.

[turbobloke]

For those interested, another take on what could be meant by a greenhouse effect is at the link.

---

We present results from a new critical review of the atmospheric Greenhouse (GH) concept. Three main problems are identified with the current GH theory. It is demonstrated that thermodynamic principles based on the Gas Law need be invoked to fully explain the Natural Greenhouse Effect. We show via a novel analysis of planetary climates in the solar system that the physical nature of the so-called GH effect is a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE), which is independent of the atmospheric chemical composition...

---

After a document critiquing Mislolczi from the stables of RealClimate try this Guest Post from Drs Nikolov and Zeller on WattsUp

[Lost_BMW]

Jasandjules said:

It's odd I don't see the BBC advertising all this cold weather - though they did mention extreme cold in the states the other day..

Ws reported tonight on channel 4 and radio (5 Live I think) that Russian authorities are warning people about and preparing fro another bout of dangerously cold temperatures (-28C being predicted) and 1000s apparently dead through cold related ailments.

Hope it doesn't hurry over here.

[Globs]

kerplunk said:

Globs said:

They match? Like this?



I think you are using an alternate meaning for 'match' yes?
So if all the models work and the AGW theory works - why is reality totally different from what the IPCC says Hairy?

wow that graph is poor work even by WUWT standards! I don't even need to check to see the last datapoint is 2011 not 2012, and what is that black 'actual' line showing?

Errm.

You do know...

... about that graph...


...err



It's an IPCC graph.

Did you want to revise your opinion of it now?

[Jasandjules]

[kerplunk]

Globs said:

kerplunk said:

Globs said:

They match? Like this?



I think you are using an alternate meaning for 'match' yes?
So if all the models work and the AGW theory works - why is reality totally different from what the IPCC says Hairy?

wow that graph is poor work even by WUWT standards! I don't even need to check to see the last datapoint is 2011 not 2012, and what is that black 'actual' line showing?

Errm.

You do know...

... about that graph...


...err



It's an IPCC graph.

Did you want to revise your opinion of it now?

graph said:

Annotations by Ira Glickstein

[PRTVR]

Globs said:

Errm.

You do know...

... about that graph...


...err



It's an IPCC graph.

Did you want to revise your opinion of it now?

[Lost_BMW]

kerplunk said:

Globs said:

kerplunk said:

Globs said:

They match? Like this?



I think you are using an alternate meaning for 'match' yes?
So if all the models work and the AGW theory works - why is reality totally different from what the IPCC says Hairy?

wow that graph is poor work even by WUWT standards! I don't even need to check to see the last datapoint is 2011 not 2012, and what is that black 'actual' line showing?

Errm.

You do know...

... about that graph...


...err



It's an IPCC graph.

Did you want to revise your opinion of it now?

graph said:

Annotations by Ira Glickstein

Is Ira the substitute goalie?

[Silver Smudger]

Globs said:

kerplunk said:

Globs said:

They match? Like this?



I think you are using an alternate meaning for 'match' yes?
So if all the models work and the AGW theory works - why is reality totally different from what the IPCC says Hairy?

wow that graph is poor work even by WUWT standards! I don't even need to check to see the last datapoint is 2011 not 2012, and what is that black 'actual' line showing?

Errm.

You do know...
... about that graph...
...err
It's an IPCC graph.
Did you want to revise your opinion of it now?

'Uncertainties' in the models?

[kerplunk]

Guam said:

kerplunk said:

I don't know how many tools work - are you saying there's something wrong with my use of the settings?

If you dont know how the tools impact the end result then you cannot rely on the output in any argument, you know full well this happens you were present on the thread where it was demonstrated.
Basically using wood for trees without a full explanation of what was done to the data without caveats is tantamount to an attempt to decieve imho.
Thats why the view was taken to ask folks to go to the soutce and link to the supporting text, ftom whence it came.
It is interesting that, that is being conveniently forgotten in these discussions about the site <desperation perhaps>?

I disproved your demonstration - see thread for details

I only recall you claiming to have demonstrated something in the past, not the demonstration itself.

You can see what settings are chosen by the key on WFT graphs so I still don't understand the real nature of your complaint.

[Diderot]

PRTVR said:

Globs said:

Errm.

You do know...

... about that graph...


...err



It's an IPCC graph.

Did you want to revise your opinion of it now?

Found that warming yet KP?

[kerplunk]

Guam said:

No you did not disprove anything of the sort <you dont understand the tools NOW by your own admission so clearly you did not then>, that is completey untrue!
The three Graphs were posted by me Showing the impacts on the data sets of selecting three different settings.
Thats what revealed the flaw in its use <without extensive caveats>.

Now you can carry on with this nonsense all you like <including making untrue comments such as the one you just did>.
I will call BS every time you post them, as thats what it is no more no less <unless you state what settings you chose and why>.
You have admitted yourself you dont understand the tools, so your continued use of them is no more than pointless nonsense!

You're always claiming victory from some past discussion and then refuse to replicate it. I have proven this to be the case - see thread for details.

Up to you - pony up or I'm out of this convo and will carry on regardless.

[Lost_BMW]

Guam said:

kerplunk said:

You're always claiming victory from some past discussion and then refuse to replicate it. I have proven this to be the case - see thread for details.

Up to you - pony up or I'm out of this convo and will carry on regardless.

More nonsense no victory to be claimed just a recorded statememt of fact you just lied, you cannot disprove that which you freely admit you do not understand, the demonstration is there and was very simple to understand, I dont need to redo the excercise when the decicision was taken to ban its use due to potential misleading of folks <deliberate or inadvertent> You claimed to disprove that this was possible you said, yet the three trend lines were <and are> there for all to see from one <at the time> publicly accepted dataset.

YOU are the one who keeps drawing us back to this and YOU are the one who is being economical with the truth.
When you figure out how you can disprove that which you dont understand feel free to let us all know!

Weird how he's so stubbornly plugging this line isn't it? He knows loads about climate change now but statistics? Not really equipped to pontificate on the niceties of statistical manipulation etc. is he?

Or does he have some new friends helping out, from a different place?

[kerplunk]

Lost_BMW said:

Weird how he's so stubbornly plugging this line isn't it? He knows loads about climate change now but statistics? Not really equipped to pontificate on the niceties of statistical manipulation etc. is he?

Or does he have some new friends helping out, from a different place?

I have 'unplugged' from that convo - I will address substance if it ever arrives but I'm not pulling teeth with Guam again. Been there done that (see thread for details)

[hairykrishna]

Guam said:

hairykrishna said:

Are you going to hold all posted graphs to the same high standard? The one from Turbobloke published in the daily mail for example? Or the ones culled from various 'skeptic' blogs?

You already know the answer to that dont you? I agreed with your point with Globs when he used wood for trees did I not?
Or doesnt that count in your eyes?

It's stupid.

A graph like this;



Produced by some blogger with a history of graph related fk ups, with a trendline with no explanation. The trendline doesn't even seem to match one produced by a chi-squared minimisation fit in Origin, to the same data.

This is deemed fine, while one from woodvstrees is not. I don't understand the contradiction. What makes some bloggers (or newspapers or whatever) agenda based manipulation more acceptable?

[turbobloke]

You (hairykrishna) omit mention of context.

When offered in response to the same from the faithful, it's more than apt.

FakeClimate and SkepticalJunkscience links are no better. Advocacy isn't about independent thought in advancing science it's about advocacy for The Cause.

Is it not the case that RealClimate has been funded by Environmental Media Services? EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt a former journalist and former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign. There are references on the web to EMS links with Fenton Communications, the Fenton Communications with a client list that includes organizations pushing leftist social issues and liberal causes such as MoveOn.org and even Greenpeace gets a mention iirc. Cook's advice to think of ickle childwen and listen only to climate officialdumb is hilarious for a science blog (appealing to authority is a logical fallacy) as well as sickly. Climate Audit, WUWT, the Pielke and Spencer blogs are all light years ahead - because they adhere more closely to the scientific process not because of what they say.

If we have to put up with that level of dreck we could at least be spared random propagandagraphology from wood for old rope.

[turbobloke]

There's only one thing wrong with the current IPCC flavour 'greenhouse' theory, and that is - it's inadequate. The data say so. And that's data from sensors near aircon outlets, chimneys, airport tarmac, parked cars, on the roofs of buildings and near trash burners, after which a great slice of data from former Soviet stations is omitted because it doesn't fit with doctrine, and the rest gets substitution and homogenisation to warm up recent decades and cool down past decades, and there's still no visible human signal in the resulting corrupted data.

As such, alternatives are worth exploring to see if there is data such as UAH LTT that can be used to support or falsify them, the fact that RealClimate publish a rebuttal or J6P thinks its cranky, that's neither here nor there.

Another thing wrong with the current 'greenhouse' theory is that, unlike a time when alternatives from Miskolczi and others are weighed against data from observation, and the data don't fit, it doesn't get rejected. Instead, mass PR efforts swing into action. Anyone calling that science is deluding themselves.

[turbobloke]

An example of the Mr Angry type PR ejaculation after AR5 SOD publication and commentary is on WUWT with responses from the individual under attack. The accusations used in the attack are demonstrably false, as is normal with the hot air alarmist tendency. Get the headline, reassure the faithful, forget science and accuracy.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/22/joe-romm-dem...

[Globs]

hairykrishna said:

It's stupid.

A graph like this;



Produced by some blogger with a history of graph related fk ups, with a trendline with no explanation.

Excuse me Hairy, but the blogger has a history of explaining how one graph may have been biased, at the bottom of one blog. To me, that means the guy is capable of admitting fault and learning from it. I'd trust graphs from this guy - as you should,

Contrast that with the IPCC - or indeed the mann who created a whole industry out of a single tree and dodgy statistics... he's now suing people about his incorrect, biased graph instead of moving on in a scientific way.

Additionally - well, perhaps we'll look at the same source - trend-lines with no explanation - that's a bit rich coming from a believer isn't it? The IPCC methods and data are obfuscated and hidden and yet you pick holes in a simple graph?!?!

You are as blind as KP, who attacked out of hand a graph because he didn't realise it was from the Sacred Source - the IPCC itself. You both follow your dogma to the exclusion of physics, data and reason - the only mystery from us rational people is 'Why'? Are you really so desperate for your warming to be true, and the 26,000 fuel poverty deaths ths winter in England and Wales weren't on your watch?