Philip

You certainly seem uninterested in science as such

This goes beyond unfounded. It isn't worth a response.

For myself, I have no pet theories, no pet arguments.

Nonsense. How stupid do you think I am? This kind who-me? crap is tedious.

Now keep up the good work:

- don't mention the rebuttals to Lindzen

- don't mention RP Sr's many errors

- don't discuss the land-only satellite/surface comparison I helpfuly prepared for you above

- do keep smearing and delegitimising me all the time

- hope everybody else is too thick to spot your clever tactics ;-)

matthu

You don't need a stats background for noddy stuff like fitting trends to a time-series.

All you need is the intellectual honesty to accept what they are telling you.

Shub

BBD, why don't you email your 'cautious' graph to your climate scientists, maybe they can help you with this?

Well, what can I say, other than, ... this is embarrassing.

Since we both know that you are incapable of preparing even simple graphs to illustrate your points, why don't you stop making a fool out of yourself with comments like this?

You really never learn, do you?

BBD,

I'm happy to discuss any of the issues you mention.

BBD
I'm sorry (truly) but the graph is cherry picking of the first order.
You are not comparing like with like. You are ignoring the fact that over the last couple of hundred years temps have gone down as well as up — like my bloody bank shares. The trend during each of the three warming periods has been (pretty much) identical.
The trend for 1970-2000 is the same as the trend for 1910-1940 is the same as the trend for 1850-1880. Or are you telling me that is not the case?
There has been no increase in the temperature trend during the most recent warming as compared with previous ones.
Or are you telling me that is not the case?
To compare a period of warming with a longer period which included both warming and cooling and to draw conclusions about that particular warming trend is at best meaningless and at worst dishonest.

Philip

Okay, let's start with 'evidence for a low climate sensitivity'.

Where is it?

"Why don't you stop making a fool out of yourself with comments like this?"

I think that is good advice. Talking to you is making a fool of oneself.

Mike

I'm sorry (truly) but the graph is cherry picking of the first order.

No it isn't. Comparing a 110y trend with a 60y trend with a 35y trend is far, far from cherry-picking.

But to keep you unhappy, let's look at BEST without the trends.

Now, you are arguing that there's nothing unusual about the period ~1970 - present. But obviously there is.

Refusing to accept the obvious is a crime against the self.

Shub

Then FFS leave me alone. Stop sniping at me. You always come off worst when you do this. I've already showed you up half-a-dozen times (the last was particularly unpleasant). Leave me be and I'll do my best to ignore you.

I'm not trying to defend any particular value, high or low. I think we can probably both think of a number of papers where low values have been reported. Where did you want to go with this?

Interaction with you is a damage limitation exercise, my friend. It is a public service. I am quite pleased for having you sussed. I was the earliest here.

You know how mad Richard Tol was when the Ludecke paper was discussed at Climate Etc. I take that as a supremely positive sign. It is a pity there was no one similar to kick up a storm when the IPCC published its fraud graph.

Poor zbd,...another thread lost to the woodfortrees trollery.

Shub

You are a complete buffoon. Now do go away and leave the rest of us in peace.

BBD - you say that you don't need a stats background for noddy stuff like fitting trends to a time-series.
That all you need is the intellectual honesty to accept what they are telling you.

So what exactly is it that you think your trend fitting has been telling you, and what standard statistical tests did you perform to test the validity of what you think you have been led to believe? Or did you omit any tests?

Philip

Oh, I see. A new kind of evasiveness.

Perhaps I mis-phrased the question. Let's try again:

Where is the evidence for a low climate sensitivity?

We've seen that Lindzen doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and he's the darling of the low CS/lukewarmer camp. So I was wondering upon what you base your obvious scepticism.

I'm also very curious as to why you won't admit that you are, in fact, a sceptic (lukewarmer, whatever). Why is this?

matthu

Stop being silly. The OLS trends tell me - or anyone with the intellectual honesty to look at them square - that the rate of warming is increasing. See also the no-trends BEST graph at Nov 10, 2011 at 6:44 PM.

Enough with this nonsense, please.

BBD - sorry, but you need more than intellectual honesty to draw the conclusions you have drawn. And for someone without a background in statistics to say "enough of this nonsense" tells us a lot about what is wrong with the science of climate change.

Ah, the great statistician has spoken. Okay, let's write off climate science then.

Dear God.

No, not climate science. Climate change science.

BBD,

I'm not trying to be evasive or to advocate for a particular climate change position, other than "we should expect some warming from CO2". I'm certainly interested in better understanding a number of areas of recent work off the beaten track, for example Lovejoy's. If you want me to advocate for something in this area, than I would have a go at supporting Climate Fix / Hartwells, although we might possibly agree about that, yes?. It seems a little pointless to simply exchange references to papers, rebuttals, rebuttal-rebuttals etc. Here is a low sensitivity paper from a year or so back, that I'm moderately familiar with. Would you like to discuss this one with me in more detail?

Wonderful site woodfortrees, BBD. I love it. Can usually prove anything you want given the right input. Bit like a climate model. Not that I'm suggesting ...
Let's leave BEST out of this for the moment, shall we, and stick to the subject. We were discussing your (mis)use of a graph purporting to show an increased warming trend in 1970-2000 (or at least those are dates I'm using and I don't think they're very far out
http://tinyurl.com/cg9wlzk is another woodfortrees compilation which shows that the trend for 1910-1940 and 1970 to 2000 are virtually identical. 1850-1880 not quite so much but 1860-1880 is very, very close.
You seem to have learnt very quickly from Dr Hansen how to get a result because the only way in which you can claim an increased warming trend for 1970-2000 is by depressing the overall trend for previous periods by including the two periods of cooling from 1880 to 1910 and from 1940 to 1970.
I've used Hadcrut3 for no particular reason and it shows an overall warming for the period of about 0.03 per decade.1850-1880 shows ~.06 per decade (I'm using the Mk 1 eyeball here) (1860-1880 is ~0.1); 1910-1940 ~0.15 per decade; 1970-2000 ~0.16 per decade.
I repeat: you cannot take a period in which there have been three warming episodes and two cooling episodes, and compare the whole period with one of the warming episodes and claim a dramatic increase in warming in that one period. You can say the same about any warming period and the 1940-1970 trend was virtually identical.

Back to BEST ...
http://tinyurl.com/bqrsdpu is another woodfortrees graph to 2000 showing the overall trend as 0.08 per decade and the 1970-2000 as 0.17.

You pays your money ...

Philip

Yup, I 'like' the CF/Hartwell Paper approach.

I'm not really interested in S&B10 because Dessler (2010) has rather been there and done that. I also find it worrying that you take RS seriously.

Have you read Bickmore's various critiques of RS? They are here.

Take particular note of the dissection of the Great GW Blunder (which I own and have read). Also of the toy climate model RS is so fond of.

I was totally fooled by RS. In fact bearing on what you asked me earlier, realising that he'd conned me was a big step onto the road that led me to where I am now. Do follow the link if you are an impartial seeker after truth.

Mike

You should not use data prior to 1900 as it is all considered unreliable. It mainly comes from Europe and N America, so it is also geographically limited.

That aside, perhaps the best way to address your irrational phobia of uncontentious trend fitting is to use the decadal mean. This will highlight decade-on-decade changes. Let's see what happens:

CRUTEM3 and BEST 1900 - present, common 1981 - 2000 baseline, 10 year means

Notice something... unusual about the period ~1975 - present?

Or are you going to carry your denial of the obvious to ever-more farcical extremes?

I like it how this troll and his conversational climate science worship and glorification gets taken seriously.

"Now do go away..."

There it is, again.

Shub

I thought you were going to stop bothering talking to me. DNFTT and all that.