In article ,
flipper wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:19:44 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:46:46 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:14:01 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:
In article ,
flipper wrote:
The former CRU high priest Jones just admitted on BBC that there has
been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (FYI, that's
not
'fast') and that the Medieval warm period just might have been
warmer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Context is important.
Which is, no doubt, why you snipped my message to hell and back
removing all traces of it.
I focussed on a testable claim. I don't dispute your opinions.
Doesn't alter the fact that you took it out of context.
Taking it out of context didn't change the meaning.
Then you may now retract your claim that "Context is important."
Can't have it both ways, pal. Either it is or it isn't.
It works both ways, pal. You changed his meaning with your description.
The fact is, it is and what you quoted was in reply to a specific
point the knowing of which makes my reply clear. I was addressing the
claim of "faster than previously..." as further clarified by my
parenthetical 'explanation' lest someone 'miss it'.
I'm not addressing that point. I'm addressing your misleading cite of
Jones.
I didn't say the man had become rational or suddenly started
practicing good science. I said "no statistically significant warming"
hardly constitutes the 'even faster than' hysteria previously posted.
To what point?
To the point in the context you removed.
You think that's a winning point? Yes, I took it out of context, but
doing so doesn't damage your claim.
Already explained and you trying to **** all over your own 'witticism'
is getting funnier and funnier.
Repetition is the soul of wit.
Both things can be true:
No they can't.
Yes, they can.
No they can't/
I win.
Temps could have zoomed up to 1995 levels faster than
expected.
The past has not changed over the last 15 years for it to now be
'faster than expected'.
To the 95% confidence level.
no statistically significant
warning in the last five years
1995-2010 is not 5 years.
Oopsie. Doesn't change my meaning.
The hell it doesn't.
That's right, it doesn't.
The switch from concern over 'cooling' to 'warming' occurred around
1980 making the 15 year 1995-2010 of "not statistically significant"
period dern near equal to the previous 15 year 'warming' period where
your error of stating 5 years diminishes the ratio.
Science is like that. The "switch" is the result of new observations. My
incorrect 'five years' has no effect on it.
and overall warming faster than once
expected.
So you're now arguing that AGW proponents never claimed warming would
be "statistically significant."
Piffle.
Jones addresses this in the article: warming over the last 35 years is
statistically significant, over the last fifteen is not, but "only
just," short of the 95% significance level.
That's a word game but the AGW conjecture doesn't allow for a 15 year
'stall' while CO2 marches onward, which is why the emails have them
lamenting it as a "tragedy" AGW can't explain it.
Word games with pilfered emails doesn't erase the hypothesis.
Jones goes on to reiterate the scientific consensus
He goes on to reiterate his opinion to questions asking his opinion.
I don't operate on 'opinion'. I operate on science and he doesn't have
it.
Hence the measured scientific language you use.
Yes, like falsifiable prediction. AGW should try some science for a
change.
while your
description implies he's suddenly changed his mind.
His statement on the Medieval Warm Period is in direct opposition to
previous flat assertions it was 'local' and 'settled science'. And
anyone who's followed their, so called, 'temperature reconstructions'
is aware of the machinations they've gone through trying to make the
MWP 'go away' (including on the 'local') in order to falsify support
for the unsupported claim of 'unprecedented', which is a cherry
picking to begin with because current temperatures are not even close
to the geological median, much less 'unprecedented'.
What do you call it when you change the subject by answering a different
point than the one being discussed?
The point was you claming I "implie(s) he's suddenly changed his mind"
and I gave you more of the same.
Yes, you did that the first time and you are doing it again this
additional time.
As for MWP "direct opposition," what I see is a calm discussion of the
subject and of the limits of the data available.
Context is important, remember? While he tries to throw up a facade
of, in your words, 'calm discussion' that 'calm discussion' is in
direct opposition to previous assertions (that context thingie) it
flat didn't exist. Not only that but Mann and Jones' CRU virtually
erased the little ice age as well. And, of course, so does the IPCC,
as in
"Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods
of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional
terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have
limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean
temperature changes in past centuries..."
Hogwash.
Good, you're now quoting. I see no reason not to take him at his word.
Btw, his 'explanation' for the "nature trick" is a half truth. Yes,
the "divergence problem" *is* 'well known'. What he doesn't tell you
is they have no idea why the tree ring proxy doesn't work for spit
after 1950 and that that means the proxy they based the reconstruction
on is useless and, hence, the supposed 'reconstruction'.
It doesn't matter why the the divergence happened.
The hell it doesn't.
Yes, it doesn't.
Are you saying the
proxy is useless because they didn't use tree ring data known to be
divergent?
No, I'm saying that when the proxy doesn't 'work' -- here and you
don't know why it doesn't 'work' -- here then you have no way of
knowing whether it's working -- there or anywhere else.
Or, to put it bluntly, if it's screwed from 1960-2010 then what the
hell makes you think it's any damn good in 1250?
It's just the tree-ring thing that's screwed up.
If you knew *why* it screwed up and could show those conditions do not
exist elsewhere in the record, or if you could 'correct' for whatever
conditions cause it, then you might have a chance but you can't
legitimately just stick your head in the sand and, que sera sera, lop
off the parts you don't like. That's 'junk science'.
In 'real science' when your process doesn't work for no identifiable
reason that's a big fraking 'red flag' your process, understanding of
it, or both, is wrong.
In real science questions are answered by evidence. If tree-ring data
from 1960 on doesn't work, it isn't used.
Stephen