What if man made climate change

[sasguru]

A professional statistician writes...



Click!

From that link:

"Yes, folks. Bob Tisdale actually believes that “eyeballing” the correct lag and scale factor for fitting time series is better than multiple regression. The WUWT crowd laps it up. It’s near impossible to have an intelligent conversation with people who believe such things."



Exactly what happens with the morons on here. They'll look at a graph and not realise there are actually mathematical techniques to tell you if the trend you think are seeing exists or not.

[BlasterBates]

You have not engaged with the substance of the criticisms of Easterbrook’s stuff,

For starters the blogger says the ice core only gives useful data up to 1855. He simply states he wrote to someone. Is he really qualified to know how to analyse the data?

Ice can form within 20 years, depending on precipitation or it can take 200 years, but the blogger doesn't explain this other than to say "it decades for ice to form". There is a bit of a difference between 20 and 200 years. Secondly why can't you analyse samples where the ice isn't fully compacted. The oxygen isotopes are still there. I suspect this is how the blogger is trying to twist the argument, in that the solid ice goes up to 1855 but there is probably partially compacted ice on top, so he claims the ice sample is 150 years old.

Don Easterbrook disputes the data only goes up to 1855 stating that is a lie, which would confirm such a supposition. He analysed the dust on the top, which means the sample goes up to whatever date they took it from, including the snow and dust on the very top layer. Who are you inclined to believe. A professor of galciology or a blogger. If the blogger is right, Easterbrook has falsified the data, but why isn't the University doing anything about it? Why was there surface dust on the sample, if it was from 1855 it would be deep down. Why would they cut off the top layer or ignore it?

The blog isn't written scientifically, it's just an ill informed dude blowing off.

I suggest you read

Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century Vinther et al. 2006

which basically blows the blogger's assertion of sharply rising temps in Greenland into smithereens.

If you splice that onto any ice record from 1850 it would appear to me to confirm Easterbrook's temp. record.

Have to say that rebuttal is very poor indeed.

[DimPrawn]

And now, the Met Office global climate forecast for 2011

BBC - Paul Hudson's Weather & Climate Blog: Global temperature forecast for 2011

Looking ahead, The Met Office expects 'half the years between 2010 and 2015 to be hotter than the hottest year on record'.

As for 2011 they are expecting another very warm year, with a global anomaly forecast of +0.44C above the 1961-1990 average.

That would make 2011 the equal 6th warmest year on record. Their latest forecast for 2011 can be read here.

So far, it's been a very cold start to the year globally. With La Nina, an area of cold water in the tropical Pacific which depresses global temperatures, expected to continue well into 2011, the Met Office's global forecast is already beginning to look too warm.


Oh Dear ™

[EternalOptimist]

SasPeaBrain

In one sentance you are saying our opinion on cagw does not count because we are not trained PHD's on the subject, in the next you are commenting on the unification of quantum mechanics with relativity.

That either means you are a PHD in quantum physics, Albert Einsteins long lost grandson or a peabrained hypocrite.


my money is on the latter

[BlasterBates]

BBC - Paul Hudson's Weather & Climate Blog: Global temperature forecast for 2011

Looking ahead, The Met Office expects 'half the years between 2010 and 2015 to be hotter than the hottest year on record'.

As for 2011 they are expecting another very warm year, with a global anomaly forecast of +0.44C above the 1961-1990 average.

That would make 2011 the equal 6th warmest year on record. Their latest forecast for 2011 can be read here.

So far, it's been a very cold start to the year globally. With La Nina, an area of cold water in the tropical Pacific which depresses global temperatures, expected to continue well into 2011, the Met Office's global forecast is already beginning to look too warm.


Oh Dear ™

This prediction made several years ago that everyone scoffed at doesn't look so stupid now does it.

statements

Global temps currently running -0.1 and dropping, and record snow in the US. What was it that Dr Viner said in 2000:

"within a few years, children just aren't going to know what snow is"

[sasguru]

SasPeaBrain

In one sentance you are saying our opinion on cagw does not count because we are not trained PHD's on the subject, in the next you are commenting on the unification of quantum mechanics with relativity.

That either means you are a PHD in quantum physics, Albert Einsteins long lost grandson or a peabrained hypocrite.


my money is on the latter

If this is an example of your logical thought processes, I would give up with the AGW debate.
You're too thick.

[DimPrawn]

If this is an example of your logical thought processes, I would give up with the AGW debate.
You're too thick.

Can I play?

[EternalOptimist]

If this is an example of your logical thought processes, I would give up with the AGW debate.
You're too thick.

stop making ad hominem attacks on me.


pea brain

[BlasterBates]

Er - a blogger who took the trouble of consulting with Richard Alley, who curates the data ....




Source Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer

No journal would touch this flawed stuff with a bargepole....

I doubt that the blogger would know how to pose the right question. Of course there might some samples from 1855 and is that all there is in the archive? Anyone accepting a story from a blogger is very naive to say the least.

Easterbrook is on record that the bloggers are lying.

If you're right why is Easterbrook not facing disciplinary action. Why doesn't the blogger get a scientist to post this on his website, so that it enters into the scientific discourse.

Basically this rebuttal boils down to an unfounded accusation.

I find it interesting that you first point out the importance of academic discourse and then rely on a blogger who has never studied glaciology in his life.

[sasguru]

I doubt that the blogger would know how to pose the right question. Of course there might some samples from 1855 and is that all there is in the archive? Anyone accepting a story from a blogger is very naive to say the least.

Easterbrook is on record that the bloggers are lying.

If you're right why is Easterbrook not facing disciplinary action. Why doesn't the blogger get a scientist to post this on his website, so that it enters into the scientific discourse.

Basically this rebuttal boils down to an unfounded accusation.

I find it interesting that you first point out the importance of academic discourse and then rely on a blogger who has never studied glaciology in his life.

If you were dying of cancer would you take the generally accepted consensus treatment or pick one of the many quacks peddling alternative cures?