Water Dog wrote:f you need help with the trendline part let me know.
Sure I need help with it. If we look at the period after 1998 it is well above the period just before 1998 showing an obvious warmer period, meaning any trend line will not be horizontal.
Water Dog wrote:f you need help with the trendline part let me know.
Sure I need help with it. If we look at the period after 1998 it is well above the period just before 1998 showing an obvious warmer period, meaning any trend line will not be horizontal.
That's like commenting on a mountain at the foot as opposed to after climbing it and summiting. The pause specifically refers to that long flat period after 98. That it plateus at a level higher than pre 98, so what? Nobody is disputing that avg temps in the decade after 98 were higher than those before 98. The point is that according to the models, there should not have been a pause. If driven by CO2, the temps should have steadily risen. They didn't.
Water Dog wrote:RI, it's a cute game, but I can't imagine very many are fooled by it. I'm sure even DT can figure out how to pull a CSV file into Excel and hit the chart button. If you need help with the trendline part let me know.
This
Is not this.
It's a shame alarmists don't want to have an honest discussion, but it is what it is, apparently. TBML.
Once again Denier Dog refuses to consider the data, unless it comes from a denier website. Has he refuted what I posted. No. He just sneers because I used a graph of annual temperatures. So what? How do you think Lord Monckton creates all those custom graphs that Dog posted? He inputs data into some kind of program that generates charts. Does Dog show that the analysis is wrong? Oh hell no. He tries to insinuate something about trend lines, but doesn't show that anything is wrong with the trend lines I showed.
Dog also seems to think that temperatures should monotonically increase with the increase in CO2. Why? No explanation. He just asserts it. The fact is that there are lots of drivers of the climate -- none of them increase or decrease temperatures monotonically, especially over short periods of time. It's a dishonest argument, and Dog would know that if he read the science. You know, those 1000 pages that survey the scientific literature. The one he disdainfully even refuses to read. The one he ignores in favor of stuff guys post on denier websites.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Dog, since you appear to be claiming some expertise on trend lines, please post an analysis that shows there was a statistically significant change in trend to zero starting at 1998 or any other date. Include the relevant statistical tests to show that the change meets the test of statistical significance. If you claim that Monckton's graphs meet those tests, please post the analysis and show your work. You are the one claiming a change in trend. Eyeballing a few years of a graph of noisy data is not, as you well know, sufficient to establish a change in trend.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Water Dog wrote: The point is that according to the models, there should not have been a pause. If driven by CO2, the temps should have steadily risen.
What Dog said there is so off far base it's not even wrong. He doesn't understand the models. He would if he read the science. But Dog doesn't read because Dog doesn't care.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Replace the word "denier" with "anti Mormon" and you'll understand what RI is. He makes fake graphs to dishonestly claim others are faking graphs. Has he demonstrated any of my graphs to be fake? Nope. He says to read things, while simultaneously not reading things and discouraging people from reading things. One should only read faithful, faith promoting sources. Notice he doesn't want to respond to Curry or Lewis's critique of his book of scripture. Because they know his Book of Mormon a lot better than he does. Instead of discussing the pause, which is a real thing, in the context of the models and the science and what it means, he chooses to fake graphs.
Why? Because he doesn't understand the science. He doesn't understand the models, or the data, or even the basic contents of his holy book. Because he is guilty of every false accusation he makes. He's an alarmist, and can do no more than parrot his alarmist sources. Every single thing I said in past comments, he's done it. I point out that models lack empirical validation, and that an excuse for this is the time scales. He goes on a tirade over this, accusing me of doctoring sources. He contests my point. And now here he is, arguing this very same point. I make the point that the climate is multi dimensional, it is not a unidimensional problem that can be reduced to just CO2. We go round and round, and now he's saying the same thing. When he wants to prove warming, he reduces the dimensionality of the problem. When his own data and graph cries out against him, blah blah, read my book of scripture, God's ways are not man's ways.
Alarmists aren't interested in truth. Just as a TBM apologist isn't interested in truth. Their goal is only to silence the critics. Which is why they use terms like "denier." It's about being so loud and obnoxious that the denier is drowned out.
Water Dog wrote:Replace the word "denier" with "anti Mormon" and you'll understand what RI is. He makes fake graphs to dishonestly claim others are faking graphs. Has he demonstrated any of my graphs to be fake? Nope. He says to read things, while simultaneously not reading things and discouraging people from reading things. One should only read faithful, faith promoting sources. Notice he doesn't want to respond to Curry or Lewis's critique of his book of scripture. Because they know his Book of Mormon a lot better than he does. Instead of discussing the pause, which is a real thing, in the context of the models and the science and what it means, he chooses to fake graphs.
Why? Because he doesn't understand the science. He doesn't understand the models, or the data, or even the basic contents of his holy book. Because he is guilty of every false accusation he makes. He's an alarmist, and can do no more than parrot his alarmist sources. Every single thing I said in past comments, he's done it. I point out that models lack empirical validation, and that an excuse for this is the time scales. He goes on a tirade over this, accusing me of doctoring sources. He contests my point. And now here he is, arguing this very same point. I make the point that the climate is multi dimensional, it is not a unidimensional problem that can be reduced to just CO2. We go round and round, and now he's saying the same thing. When he wants to prove warming, he reduces the dimensionality of the problem. When his own data and graph cries out against him, blah blah, read my book of scripture, God's ways are not man's ways.
Alarmists aren't interested in truth. Just as a TBM apologist isn't interested in truth. Their goal is only to silence the critics. Which is why they use terms like "denier." It's about being so loud and obnoxious that the denier is drowned out.
Bleh.
Shorter Water Dog: I can’t demonstrate a statistically significant pause, nor can I explain why year to year temperatures should mirror the increase in CO2. So I’ll just retreat to accusing RI of doing all the stuff I do.
This is the standard follow up to the Gish Gallop: throw out a huge volume of crap. Then as each piece of crap is examined, complain that the rest of the crap had yet to be refuted.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:Shorter Water Dog: I can’t demonstrate a statistically significant pause, nor can I explain why year to year temperatures should mirror the increase in CO2. So I’ll just retreat to accusing RI of doing all the stuff I do.
This is the standard follow up to the Gish Gallop: throw out a huge volume of crap. Then as each piece of crap is examined, complain that the rest of the crap had yet to be refuted.
Can I prove a negative? No, I can't. Dude, that's your burden. You have not shown a statistically significant warming trend. You have not shown any observed warming to fall outside normal variance. You have not shown CO2 to have a statistically significant impact on the multidimensional climate system.
Water Dog wrote: ...he doesn't understand the science. He doesn't understand the models, or the data, or even the basic contents of his holy book.
Dog, based on what you’ve been presenting over the course of about three different threads on this subject, I don’t think that you’re capable of explaining or defining just what your argument really boils down to.
