Simple Question About AGW

[a_unique_person]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_28147a4a0f240c34.jpg

These are the monthly temperature anomalies, since 1978.

To say that it's not warmed in the last decade is... well, depressing. The graph was made with the database that David Rodale was using to make his argument, so if someone has problems with it, talk to him, please.

Thanks for the excellent graph.

I apologize for my scattered posting, but I've been too busy IRL.

Cheers

I'll pretend I didn't hear you say that.

 

[fsol]

Oh, you took his "statistical analysis" seriously. Okay, then. I'm just a bit dense today. Well, let's see - his presumption is that current events have noise plus a 0.18C GW signal overlaid on top of noise at least through the year 2035. He is making an argument that basically all climate is noise except for the 0.18C GW signal and that if you pick an arbitrary outlier and equate it to 1998, you can still see a rising trend.

we know, without any doubt whatsoever, that the signal is still increasing, at a rate of exactly 0.018 deg.C/yr. It’s the noise that shows cooling — and for such a short time span, the cooling in the noise overwhelms the warming in the signal.

Well....DUHHHHH!!!

So here's your requested "argument against the data and analysis"

1. No, there is no reason to consider all natural causes of climate change as random noise and less reason to consider it equal to 0.1C per decade.
2. No, there is no reason to consider a steady increase in temperature due to AGW thru 2035 of 0.18C per decade.

Gee, that was easy.

Now, I note that you called sidestep when I asked this question (or maybe it was sidestep at Fred's comment), but in either case what is your answer to this.

Several people wrote in and said that with the hundreds or thousands of headlines they'd seen in 1998 and thereafter claiming that 1998 was "a tipping point" because it was so hot, eg., 1998 was used as evidence of global warming by the pro-AGW crowd, what was wrong with the "Anti-AGW" crowd using 1998 also?
​

Well, well, well now. What is your opinion of that?
​

Well, what is your opinion of that?

Now, the "You Bet" thread. Yes, it is 'entertaining' also. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

I'd like to make a point. If Tamino is so sure about his analysis of climate as being comprised of a "0.18C per decade upward trend plus random noise" as depicted in the former discussion, then he should have no problem with carrying that out to a 2 sigma or 3 sigma certainty level and making a bet. But he says -

I’ll also emphasize that I’m not interested in betting money on it.
​

Either he doesn't believe in betting at better than house odds, or he isn't quite so sure of the premises behind his "statistical analysis".

But we knew those premises were quite weak, didn't we?

What you should do is go back and read the post again. You might cotton onto his point next time.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh, you took his "statistical analysis" seriously. Okay, then. I'm just a bit dense today.

Why break a habit? Tamino is a statistical analyst, as I understand it. It seems reasonable to take his work seriously. But carry on.

Well, let's see - his presumption is that current events have noise plus a 0.18C GW signal overlaid on top of noise at least through the year 2035.

No it isn't. The 0.018C trend is the GISS trend since 1975. The point of the challenge (not really a bet, more a sort of forfeit) is to project that into the future while also projecting the "global-warming has stopped" zero-trend into the future. He also projects lines two standard deviations above and below the trends. You'll have noticed that all the previous annual temperatures fall within this band.

He is making an argument that basically all climate is noise except for the 0.18C GW signal and that if you pick an arbitrary outlier and equate it to 1998, you can still see a rising trend.

No he isn't. Not that I understand any of that, but he's definitely not arguing it. His post is very clear. I like that about the esteemed Tamino.

we know, without any doubt whatsoever, that the

signal is still increasing, at a rate of exactly 0.018 deg.C/yr. It’s the noise that shows cooling — and for such a short time span, the cooling in the noise overwhelms the warming in the signal.

What ?

The signal remains the same - 0.018C per annum. The temperature goes up (in fits and starts).

So here's your requested "argument against the data and analysis"

I couldn't be more agog.

1. No, there is no reason to consider all natural causes of climate change as random noise and less reason to consider it equal to 0.1C per decade.

You don't get noise "per decade". You get noise. There it is. So your point 1 is unclear.

2. No, there is no reason to consider a steady increase in temperature due to AGW thru 2035 of 0.18C per decade.

For the purpose of the challenge, that's what is assumed. Call it the AGW thesis. And let's call the "global warming stopped in 2001" the anti-AGW thesis. *

And so to the challenge. When two annual temperatures (not necessarily consecutive) in the future fall more than two standard deviations below the 0.018C trend-line, the AGW thesis goes hands-up. On the opposite hand, if two temperatures fall above the two standard deviation line of the anti-AGW thesis, the anti-AGW thesis does the same.

As we can see from the graphs, it's quite likely we'll get a result by 2015, and certainly by 2035.

Now, I note that you called sidestep when I asked this question (or maybe it was sidestep at Fred's comment), but in either case what is your answer to this.

Several people wrote in and said that with the hundreds or thousands of headlines they'd seen in 1998 and thereafter claiming that 1998 was "a tipping point" because it was so hot, eg., 1998 was used as evidence of global warming by the pro-AGW crowd, what was wrong with the "Anti-AGW" crowd using 1998 also?​

Well, well, well now. What is your opinion of that? ​

Well, what is your opinion of that?

How many people see hundreds of thousands of headlines in a year, let alone on one subject? (Rhetorical)

1998 saw a very strong El Nino, and those of us who know something about climate know that leads to a very warm year. There may well have been some know-nothings out there calling it a tipping-point, but what do we care about them?

There are know-nothings who claim that 1998 was the turning-point of a natural cycle, but again, what do we care about them?

I'd like to make a point. If Tamino is so sure about his analysis of climate as being comprised of a "0.18C per decade upward trend plus random noise" as depicted in the former discussion, then he should have no problem with carrying that out to a 2 sigma or 3 sigma certainty level and making a bet. But he says -

I’ll also emphasize that I’m not interested in betting money on it.​

Either he doesn't believe in betting at better than house odds, or he isn't quite so sure of the premises behind his "statistical analysis".

It's an intellectual challenge. Not everything's about money, you know. Adam Smith made that point repeatedly.

But we knew those premises were quite weak, didn't we?

I'm happy to sign up with Tamino and go hands-up on the same conditions. 2015 is only seven years on, so there's some boldness in that. On the other hand, you can't buck physics, nor the next sustained El Nino which will put one data-point above the anti-AGW thesis straight off. And there's bound to be one in the next seven years.

As I recall, Dr Dick (he of the 60-80 year Arctic ice-cycle) said that if the ice doesn't come back in the next two-to-seven years something serious is going on. 2015 just keeps coming into the frame. Some outliers have predicted a complete loss of summer Arctic ice by 2015. They've been called "alarmist", and we'll know by then if that was justified. The "Weak Solar Cycle" people will be well into interim-report time, which promises to be amusing. 2015 looks like crunch-time to me.

* ("AGW thesis" and "anti-AGW thesis" defined specifically for this post, not as some semantic diversion.)

 

[CapelDodger]

What you should do is go back and read the post again. You might cotton onto his point next time.

That's a pithier way of putting it .

How do you feel about the challenge, and maybe lining up behind Tamino? He's agreed to the forfeit, and it's a painful one.

I've decided to do the "I am Spartacus!" thing, but I am by nature a competitive thinker. And awash with beer and testosterone because Wales beat England at Twickenham. Mighty shall be the rogering in the Valleys tonight, beer notwithstanding .

 

[CapelDodger]

I'll pretend I didn't hear you say that.

Did you hear about Wales beating England at Twickenham?. World-Cup Finalists my arse ...

 

[fsol]

That's a pithier way of putting it .

How do you feel about the challenge, and maybe lining up behind Tamino? He's agreed to the forfeit, and it's a painful one

I've decided to do the "I am Spartacus!" thing, but I am by nature a competitive thinker. And awash with beer and testosterone because Wales beat England at Twickenham. Mighty shall be the rogering in the Valleys tonight, beer notwithstanding .

It seems fairly reasonable to me if you like that sort of thing.

I try to steer clear of predicting the future. As an Englishman in Wales yesterday afternoon I wouldn't have forecast how the second half turned out. Well I did, but I was painfully wrong.

I like the "bet" post because it clearly shows that the "no warming for the last decade" claim is undefendable at this time.

I think that if the trend goes off to follow the blue lines then a chunk of humble pie might be in order (a bit like yesterday evening...). As a non climatologist, all I can do is go where the data and the science takes me. If it starts cooling then the science and data will reflect that in the interim I'd have thought. What fascinates me is peoples absolute certainty that it is cooling now or that AGW isn't happening in the face of all the evidence. If it turns out that AGW does not have the effect that the evidence to date suggests then I am happy to say I was wrong. I think I'd be wrong in good faith though. I don't think you could say the same about some of the people on the otherside of the argument.

I think it is most likely to keep following the red lines, though I would prefer if it followed the blue.

 

[mhaze]

And so to the challenge. When two annual temperatures (not necessarily consecutive) in the future fall more than two standard deviations below the 0.018C trend-line, the AGW thesis goes hands-up. On the opposite hand, if two temperatures fall above the two standard deviation line of the anti-AGW thesis, the anti-AGW thesis does the same.

As we can see from the graphs, it's quite likely we'll get a result by 2015, and certainly by 2035.

How many people see hundreds of thousands of headlines in a year, let alone on one subject? (Rhetorical)

I'm happy to sign up with Tamino and go hands-up on the same conditions. 2015 is only seven years on, so there's some boldness in that. On the other hand, you can't buck physics, nor the next sustained El Nino which will put one data-point above the anti-AGW thesis straight off. And there's bound to be one in the next seven years.

As I recall, Dr Dick (he of the 60-80 year Arctic ice-cycle) said that if the ice doesn't come back in the next two-to-seven years something serious is going on. 2015 just keeps coming into the frame. Some outliers have predicted a complete loss of summer Arctic ice by 2015. They've been called "alarmist", and we'll know by then if that was justified. The "Weak Solar Cycle" people will be well into interim-report time, which promises to be amusing. 2015 looks like crunch-time to me.

* ("AGW thesis" and "anti-AGW thesis" defined specifically for this post, not as some semantic diversion.)

For the first part of your reply, if you don't understand what I was saying or what Tamino was saying, we can just leave that aside. Reread it, or not, doesn't really matter.

Tamino's bet is really a remake of Hansen 1988, where a simple standard deviation measure was used to attempt to find the "smoking gun" of AGW. Hansen had SD=0.13C, and suggested 3 sigma deviation. Tamino using SD=0.1C, and suggests 2 SD.

One would think, that something as basic as the variation of global temperature over time, could be agreed upon by various parties. If not, that is a serious problem in getting useful results. In saying this, I'm not interesting in the response "oh, X used the period 1951-1980, and y used the period 1975-2000", yada-yada-yada. That's nonsense, really. If anyone wants to talk about significant global temperature change, they really need to have a firm grasp on what the natural variability is, not a measure that changes with the choice of an arbitrary measuring period (or for the purposes of an argument).

Second, Tamino seems to want to ignore actual physical phenomena, such as the PDO, in favor of the statistical dispersion. Reduce the matter to just a string of numbers and ignore all causes, ignore all autocorrelative events and periodicity.

So going with that (unscientific, but Vegas) point of view for the moment.....

Looking at the decadal time scales of the relevant physical phenomena that can influence climate, I'm inclined to think anyone throwing darts at Tamino's bet would likely lose if betting for AGW continued temperature increases.

By the way. You translated "hundreds or thousands" into "hundreds of thousands".

 

[mhaze]

Further notes.

If the study below is correct, perhaps Tamino has lost his bet before he started.

(Pielke and Matsui 2005 and Lin et al. 2007), a conservative estimate of the warm bias resulting from measuring the temperature near the ground is around 0.21 C per decade (with the nightime T(min) contributing a large part of this bias). Since land covers about 29% of the Earth’s surface, the warm bias due to this influence explains about 30% of the IPCC estimate of global warming. In other words, consideration of the bias in temperature would reduce the IPCC trend to about 0.14 degrees C per decade, still a warming, but not as large as indicated by the IPCC.

Some discussion at www.icecap.us ”Difficulties With the Use of Observed Nocturnal Warming Trends as a Measure of Climate Trends.​

How does one incorporate this and other published, peer reviewed studies which affect the temperature data sets into "the bet"?

Or is Tamino's bet implicitly in denial of such work?

Alternately, one is inclined to suggest using RSS data (I'd go for mid tropospheric equatorial RSS data only) but Tamino indicated in the discussion a strong preference for GISS or that averaged with other land based series, if I recall correctly.

 

[Megalodon]

Thanks for the excellent graph.

Thanks. I wonder if the usual complaints will still arise (yeah, right...). But I think it illustrates well the point

I'll pretend I didn't hear you say that.

Sorry... Have 2 articles out, but if I don't finish this 3rd, can't defend the PhD. And since the discussion has become more and more surreal, I decided to not waste too much time with it.

 

[CapelDodger]

For the first part of your reply, if you don't understand what I was saying or what Tamino was saying, we can just leave that aside. Reread it, or not, doesn't really matter.

I understand what Tamino is saying. I'm not convinced that you do.

Tamino's bet is really a remake of Hansen 1988, where a simple standard deviation measure was used to attempt to find the "smoking gun" of AGW. Hansen had SD=0.13C, and suggested 3 sigma deviation. Tamino using SD=0.1C, and suggests 2 SD.

So he does, and you'll have noticed that all the annual temperatures since 1975 lie with that 2 SD span (even 1998). It's a reasonable inference that noise is less than that 2SD, and that any measurement outside that span is anomolous. Tamino stipulates that at least two such measurements will be indicative of divergence from the trend.

He then takes two trends, firstly the measured trend since 1975 to present, then the "no more warming" zero trend, and projects them into the future. Two or more measurements more than 2 SD from the trend will be taken as disproving the trend. Tamino reckons the "no more warming" trend will be disproved (and I agree).

It's not difficult to understand.

One would think, that something as basic as the variation of global temperature over time, could be agreed upon by various parties.

The annual measurements since 1975 are on Tamino's graphs. So is the trend line. What else do you want?

If not, that is a serious problem in getting useful results. In saying this, I'm not interesting in the response "oh, X used the period 1951-1980, and y used the period 1975-2000", yada-yada-yada. That's nonsense, really. If anyone wants to talk about significant global temperature change, they really need to have a firm grasp on what the natural variability is, not a measure that changes with the choice of an arbitrary measuring period (or for the purposes of an argument).

The base-line period simply establishes the base-line, it doesn't change the shape of the graph or the incline of the trend.

Second, Tamino seems to want to ignore actual physical phenomena, such as the PDO, in favor of the statistical dispersion. Reduce the matter to just a string of numbers and ignore all causes, ignore all autocorrelative events and periodicity.

In this case, yes, he does. He takes the observed temperatures since 1975 and projects the trend into the future. Actual physical phaenomena have influenced the temperatures, but so what? This is not about the physics of climate, it is in fact about a string of observed temperatures and projecting the trend into the future.

So going with that (unscientific, but Vegas) point of view for the moment.....

Tamino has put forward his challenge, plain and simple. He's not there to dance to your tune. It's an interesting challenge, but if you'd rather waffle around it that's your choice.

Looking at the decadal time scales of the relevant physical phenomena that can influence climate ...

You'll notice that such "decadal" processes have remained within 2 SD of the trend-line since 1975 - that's three decades - so they don't seem to be a problem.

... I'm inclined to think anyone throwing darts at Tamino's bet would likely lose if betting for AGW continued temperature increases.

Will you bet the other way? I've put a chunk of my reputation on the line. Care to do the same?

(Obviously you should be quite sure of what the challenge is before you accept it.)

 

[CapelDodger]

Sorry... Have 2 articles out, but if I don't finish this 3rd, can't defend the PhD. And since the discussion has become more and more surreal, I decided to not waste too much time with it.

"Surreal" is the word. Something as simple as Tamino's challenge becomes a Dali-esque nightmare just like that in some hands.

Your input is much appreciated. I'm retired, so I've got more than enough time on my hands . Good luck with the PhD.

 

[CapelDodger]

Further notes.


If the study below is correct, perhaps Tamino has lost his bet before he started.

That's impossible, since it involves at least two future observations. As in, not yet happened.

(Pielke and Matsui 2005 and Lin et al. 2007), a conservative estimate of the warm bias resulting from measuring the temperature near the ground is around 0.21 C per decade (with the nightime T(min) contributing a large part of this bias). Since land covers about 29% of the Earth’s surface, the warm bias due to this influence explains about 30% of the IPCC estimate of global warming. In other words, consideration of the bias in temperature would reduce the IPCC trend to about 0.14 degrees C per decade, still a warming, but not as large as indicated by the IPCC.​

Some discussion at www.icecap.us ”Difficulties With the Use of Observed Nocturnal Warming Trends as a Measure of Climate Trends.​

How does one incorporate this and other published, peer reviewed studies which affect the temperature data sets into "the bet"?

One doesn't. Tamino's challenge is what it is. If this bias exists, it has existed since 1975 and will presumably continue to exist. Since the challenge concerns projections from the past (or from zero) into the future the bias has no effect. Like will continue to be compared with like.

(I haven't ploughed through the papers myself, so I've not found out yet why the bias is supposed to increase year by year. It's going to be pretty enormous by the end of the century - there'll be night-time measurements well in excess of daytime measurements by then. Seems kinda weird on the face of it, don't you think?)

Or is Tamino's bet implicitly in denial of such work?

It is what it is. Tamino explains it very clearly.

Alternately, one is inclined to suggest using RSS data (I'd go for mid tropospheric equatorial RSS data only) but Tamino indicated in the discussion a strong preference for GISS or that averaged with other land based series, if I recall correctly.

Do your own with RSS data. You'll still lose, because AGW is real and global warming hasn't stopped.

 

[CapelDodger]

I try to steer clear of predicting the future. As an Englishman in Wales yesterday afternoon I wouldn't have forecast how the second half turned out. Well I did, but I was painfully wrong.

Oh dear. I don't envy you that. People take it very seriously around here, don't they? And this is a once-every-twenty years event, which makes it pretty damn' special.

I like the "bet" post because it clearly shows that the "no warming for the last decade" claim is undefendable at this time.

I doubt anyone's going to nail their colours to it. I expect it'll just fade away. The next thing will probably be "yes it's warming, because of the solar cycle". There'll always be something, whatever happens.

I think that if the trend goes off to follow the blue lines then a chunk of humble pie might be in order (a bit like yesterday evening...). As a non climatologist, all I can do is go where the data and the science takes me. If it starts cooling then the science and data will reflect that in the interim I'd have thought.

That's my position. And as a gardener I've watched climate change by its effects, and the change haven't slowed during this century. No matter how often I'm told that's down to measurement errors, I'm not going to buy it. My jasmine has just started flowering, and it's not a winter jasmine. I've had to cut back my avocado tree because it was in danger of blowing over. Welcome to the new normal.

What fascinates me is peoples absolute certainty that it is cooling now or that AGW isn't happening in the face of all the evidence. If it turns out that AGW does not have the effect that the evidence to date suggests then I am happy to say I was wrong. I think I'd be wrong in good faith though. I don't think you could say the same about some of the people on the otherside of the argument.

Some are dishonest, but I think many are living in denial, either because of ideological objections or because they've latched onto that side of the argument and won't eat humble pie (as you put it).

I think it is most likely to keep following the red lines, though I would prefer if it followed the blue.

None of us wants this, but it's what we've got. You can't buck physics.

 

[mhaze]

That's impossible, since it involves at least two future observations. As in, not yet happened.

Well, you got me there. So after correcting the past 30 years of cumulated anomalies, we then have practically any result for the next two years well into the blue. That is because the accumulated corrected error is almost equal to two of Tamino's choice of "standard deviation."

The skeptics win in two years. Or should we correct the SD, also?

Oops, then there is no drastic warming upon which Warmologists can fret.

(I haven't ploughed through the papers myself, so I've not found out yet why the bias is supposed to increase year by year. It's going to be pretty enormous by the end of the century - there'll be night-time measurements well in excess of daytime measurements by then. Seems kinda weird on the face of it, don't you think?)

It is what it is. Tamino explains it very clearly.

Do your own with RSS data. You'll still lose, because AGW is real and global warming hasn't stopped.

Actually you've said you preferred species migration as a metric, so do I. Tell that to Tamino, he might listen. He's the one that thinks GISS will prove his point. By the way, what temperature anomaly is inferred from the extent of changes in species migration, plant blooming, and the like?

(Pielke and Matsui 2005 and Lin et al. 2007), a conservative estimate of the warm bias resulting from measuring the temperature near the ground is around 0.21 C per decade (with the nightime T(min) contributing a large part of this bias). Since land covers about 29% of the Earth’s surface, the warm bias due to this influence explains about 30% of the IPCC estimate of global warming. In other words, consideration of the bias in temperature would reduce the IPCC trend to about 0.14 degrees C per decade, still a warming, but not as large as indicated by the IPCC.​

Some discussion at www.icecap.us ”Difficulties With the Use of Observed Nocturnal Warming Trends as a Measure of Climate Trends.​

Quote:
How does one incorporate this and other published, peer reviewed studies which affect the temperature data sets into "the bet"?


One doesn't. Tamino's challenge is what it is. If this bias exists, it has existed since 1975 and will presumably continue to exist. Since the challenge concerns projections from the past (or from zero) into the future the bias has no effect. Like will continue to be compared with like.

So you'd ignore all new scientific research that proves there is no AGW (or it has much lower effect) to win a bet that there was AGW based on continuing to use a proven incorrect data series.

It's clear why Warmologists don't want to put their money up on this.

 

[fsol]

Proven incorrect data series?

 

[mhaze]

Proven incorrect data series?

A slight exaggeration there.

 

[CapelDodger]

Well, you got me there. So after correcting the past 30 years of cumulated anomalies, we then have practically any result for the next two years well into the blue.

Gibberish.

Nothing's been corrected, the GISS series and trend has been projected into the future, the zero-trend has been projected into the future, take your pick. Or not, whatever.

That is because the accumulated corrected error is almost equal to two of Tamino's choice of "standard deviation."

What accumulated corrected error? The data points are GISS annual returns dating back to 1975. What happens next will be the result of natural processes, one of which will be AGW. The future data points to be taken into account are the GISS annual returns on global temperature. That's it. Put up or shut up. Or not, whatever.

The skeptics win in two years. Or should we correct the SD, also?

The projection is exactly what it is. That's what the challenge is based on. It's Tamino's challenge, so he gets to define it. All the lines remain straight, from now. No adjustments. No corrections. GISS global returns will be plotted into the future. There's a proviso regarding a major eruption or asteroid-strike, but I'm sure you wouldn't argue with that. That's some serious noise, but it damps out within a few years.

Oops, then there is no drastic warming upon which Warmologists can fret.

Do you think you've won the challenge already, without even signing-up in the first place? Are you claiming psychic powers? Nobody pays up on that claim. Let's see how the next two years actually turn out. If you're that confident, sign-up now. Or not, whatever.

Actually you've said you preferred species migration as a metric, so do I. Tell that to Tamino, he might listen. He's the one that thinks GISS will prove his point. By the way, what temperature anomaly is inferred from the extent of changes in species migration, plant blooming, and the like?

There isn't any. Climate change isn't important because of the figures, it's important beause of the effects. If it's converted from effect into figures you'll only demand that it be converted back into effects. Exact effects. Everywhere.

So you'd ignore all new scientific research that proves there is no AGW (or it has much lower effect) to win a bet that there was AGW based on continuing to use a proven incorrect data series.

You're very free with the "So ...", but we all know it reflects your thinking, not mine.

On that subject, does this scientific research prove both that there is no AGW, and that there is but nothing discomforting? Scientific proof you say. If you're right, science and logic fall apart. Who'd have thought something as simple and mindless as the weather could bring down such an edifice.

It's clear why Warmologists don't want to put their money up on this.

I've put my intellectual reputation on the Tamino challenge. Heck, I've been staking my reputation on the reality of AGW for decades. Not all of it, of course; some can always be salvaged by going hands-up to error. And there's always the irreducible foundation of it being an honest, argued, and disinterested error, not down to stupidity or ideological imperatives. I'm really not susceptible to propaganda.

Win my money and you win trash. Win my good name and I really feel it.

So, do you want to put your own good name on the line? The Tamino Challenge is clear and succint. We won't blather about "decadal climate influences" or try shifting the terms, there it is. Take it or waffle on. We can all draw our own conclusions.

 

[mhaze]

Gibberish....Nothing's been corrected....What accumulated corrected error? ....No adjustments. ...No corrections.....We won't blather about "decadal climate influences" or try shifting the terms

I've put my intellectual reputation on the Tamino challenge....Heck, I've been staking my reputation on the reality of AGW for decades....So, do you want to put your own good name on the line?

I think but am not sure, that you have just said that you will stake your intellectual reputation on some future data sets, irregardless of whether the historical data sets which those are based on are shown by current peer reviewed science to be inaccurate, biased or wrong.

This falls into the "Not even wrong" category, in my opinion. Any intelligent process of betting first is based on some understanding of the mechanisms or lack of in the phenomena. Hence I submit just one brief table for your consideration (from the D'Aleo paper I recently linked to). Double click to enlarge.


Incidentally, it looks like D'Aleo is having a lively discussion with Tamino over this very subject.

 

[David Rodale]

Thanks. I wonder if the usual complaints will still arise (yeah, right...). But I think it illustrates well the point



Sorry... Have 2 articles out, but if I don't finish this 3rd, can't defend the PhD. And since the discussion has become more and more surreal, I decided to not waste too much time with it.

Megalodon,

I don't know how much plainer it can be, but since you've spent so much time making another pretty graph and I don't care to argue the point anymore hence forth, maybe this from Dr. Roy Spencer can make it a bit clearer for you:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm



It is not hard to show both a warming and cooling trend depending which start points you choose. However, it is clear after 1998 there has been no additional warming despite numerous prophecies that 2007 would be the "warmest year on record". If you are going to include the 1998 El Nino into your graph (which you did) and will still insist there has been additional warming, go ahead, use January 1998 through January 2008 and see what happens. Here is RSS latest tlt data set:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time...hannel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_1.txt
Now it gets interesting doesn't it?


UAH temperature should be out within the week. Do you think it will go up?

I have no idea what it is you're trying to prove, but it is pointless. It is obvious after the recovery from 1998 El Nino (the peak) which released a lot of heat, temperatures settled and has remained flat. Yet, you insist on creating meaningless graphs that nobody can analyze but only comment how beautiful they are.

Let's try again. Please in your own words, analyze the following graph which took all of maybe 2 minutes to create. It's really not difficult, honest:




Now if you'd like to spend some time making graphs, look up the latest SST data and report back. Can there be global warming if the oceans are not?

 

[mhaze]

It is obvious after the recovery from 1998 El Nino (the peak) which released a lot of heat, temperatures settled and has remained flat. Yet, you insist on creating meaningless graphs that nobody can analyze but only comment how beautiful they are.

Looks like I'll have to dredge up the Russian fisheries reports to see what they are predicting. Cold water increases fish harvests, they go where the cold water is.

Some people actually do bet on climate cycles. They know very well what it costs to run a large commercial fishing boat for just a day.

They bet to win (have to, now that they don't have all that electronic eavesdropping gear down in the hold)