shub

The data show what they show. How this makes me 'ignorant' is a mystery.

DNFTT is the only way.

Asking you to think is not trolling. However, it is clearly a waste of time.

Shub: "It is the 'warmists" who dont like the instrumental record because it shows them rising temperatures. Sceptics like warmth." Very funny :-)

So ignoring Muller himself, do sceptics accept the BEST project, its methods and its results?

"I think it would be better if you address the insinuations of dishonesty that have been thrown at you by me, and RKS."

I'm not with you there. If you'd like to summarise where you think I am dishonest, I will answer you. Just calling me a 'troll' doesn't cut it. RKS descends into personal attacks whenever his arguments fail him and I see no reason to respond.

James, I got carried away with the UHI rant - sorry! But even as a sceptic, you must admit it is somewhat amusing ;-)

shub

I'm amazed you posted that. Thank you. But why commit suicide in public? I'm truly baffled.

shub

Please re-read our previous exchange. The rate of warming in the second half of the C20th is demonstrably greater than in the first half. It's all there. All you need to do is understand it. I'm not going through the exercise with you again. All I will say is that I find your position incomprehensible.

I don't think BitBucket is an actual troll, but he does sometmies use language which is... not designed to accommodate inclusive debate, let's say. It's a habit with warmist trolls too, such as Zed and BBD, which is why he's being mis-identified, I believe.

Still, it keeps the fighting off Unthreaded.

May 24, 2012 at 8:19 AM | TheBigYinJames>>>>

Hi James.

I'm giving BH a break for a while until it is no longer being controlled by obvious trolls with eager contributors willing to play their game.

Shame, our discussion was getting quite interesting now you've realized I was describing the philosophy as I saw it, and not personally having a dig at yourself.

shub

I dont care for your BS 'facts'.

If you won't look at the data you cannot understand it. If you cannot understand it, you cannot discuss it.

So, to repeat: Do you believe that the method of drawing straight trend-lines, as you did in the graph, is correct?

Comparing land temperature trends for 1910 - 1945 and 1975 - present demonstrates an increased rate of warming. Correctly and indisputably. As I showed in our previous exchange which you were kind enough to link above.

I presume your increasingly shrill misdirections are a belated attempt to cover this up. You should have re-read that conversation before linking to it. But then you never were the sharpest chisel in the box.

shub

Fitting linear trends (as you meant to say) is a standard technique. I know why you are kicking up a fuss, and it has nothing to do with employing bog-standard linear fits.

You have seen, I know, that comparing the trends for land surface temperature from 1910 - 1945 and 1975 - present shows that the rate of warming had doubled in the latter period.

This is not 'the wrong inference' from the wrong technique. It is a correct interpretation of the data using a standard and fully appropriate analytical tool.

And you do not like that, do you shub?

BBD. Have you spent yourself yet?

shub

I presume the '1957' is a typo?

IIRC your original claim was that the rate of warming had not increased in the latter half of the C20th. You only later objected to comparing the centennial trend with the 1975 - present trend as a demonstration of this. So, in order to accommodate your objection, I illustrated the increased - indeed doubled - rate of land surface warming as discussed above and per your link.

While I know you'd love to direct all attention to the methodological dispute, what really matters is that you were incorrect to claim that the rate of warming has not increased during the C20th. Especially as it can unequivocally be shown to have doubled.

I think we are running out of road.

BBD, I've got a brand new tub of wet wipes for when you're sated.

Contrarians on that thread made a fuss because they didn't like a simple (if incomplete) demonstration that the rate of warming has increased. It was a classic example of sceptics clamouring about irrelevancies in order to force the debate away from what really matters. Let's break it down:

1/. Is the claim correct? Yes - the rate of warming increased

2/. Is the analysis complete? No - the trend 1910 - 1940 should have been included and compared with that for the period 1975 - present. BUT the comparison of centennial and late C20th trends provides a simple illustration of what is happening. Only 'sceptics' focus on the incomplete methodology and only for tactical reasons.

3/. Are you still desperately trying to distract from the fact that the rate of warming has demonstrably increased? Yes

So, in the interests of objectivity and fairness, let's complete the exercise. Here's the graph, with a linear trend for 1910 - 1940.

Decadal trends:

1910 - 1940
0.14C

1975 - 2010.2
0.28C

The rate of warming in the most recent period has doubled.

Your ongoing attempts to misdirect this conversation are failing. My only fault was not demonstrating what is generally known and understood rigorously the first time around. And that would only matter if I was wrong.

But I was correct. The evidence is there for all to see. It's undeniable.

Two wet wipes, perhaps? Catch the blob that went on the carpet?

TBYJ

Adult contributions or no contributions please. I don't do nursery classes.

Taking point differentials (linear treands as you like to call them) of a non linear series always gets you into these sorts of difficulties.

What is the average value of the Sine function?
What is the first differential at points 0, pi/4, pi/2 and pi on that graph?

Instead of waving your hands around, just demonstrate error. That would be constructive. That is what shub can't do, so let's see you have a crack at it.

Clever. I thought the typo "treands" might have been too much, but I did think you'd get hooked up on "differential". So a troll with ability, bravo! Shame you avoided the Sine wave, though, but it's obvious to see why you avoided it.

I don't want to have a crack at anything. I want you to leave, so the grown-ups can resume talking.

That's the tragedy BBD. You speak a lot of sense, you may even be mostly or entirely correct. But your lack of social skills makes everyone hate you and refuse to have anything to do with you.

So you cannot demonstrate error. Surprise, surprise.