Another local climate change denial meme

I commented in Painted into a corner? that the release of NIWA’s report of the recalculation of New Zealand’s 7-station  long term  temperature series had called the local climate change deniers’ bluff. It was time for them to apologise, withdraw their slanderous attacks on NIWA and move on.

Yeah, right! That may have been the sensible thing to do, but of course they are in it for the politics, not the science. So the attacks continue.

Gareth at Hot Topic has an excellent summary of the action (see A Christmas cracker for the cranks). And of course the denier trolls have descended on his post with quite hilarious arguments. One is their claim “this new series shows no warming has occurred here since about 1960.”

Well, of course the series shows nothing of the sort. They appear to basing this incorrect claim on a paragraph in the report which says:

“The unusually steep warming in the 1940-1960 period is paralleled by an unusually large increase in northerly [air] flow during this same period. On a longer timeframe, there has been a trend towards less northerly flow (more southerly) since about 1960. However, New Zealand temperatures have continued to increase over this time, albeit at a reduced rate compared with earlier in the 20th century. This is consistent with a warming of the whole region of the southwest Pacific within which New Zealand is situated.”

Never the less these trolls and their public spokespersons, Richard Treadgold and Brian Leyland are working hardto push this meme. And they claim support from their “eyeball” analysis of the graph in NIWA’s report.

But all the data is available (Seven station data and 11 station data) and anyone can do their own analysis to check these claims.

So what does this data show?

The figure below shows that there is indeed a significant and relatively large increase in temperature in the 1940-1960 period (4.4°C/century compared to 0.9°C over the whole period). NIWA was perfectly justified in drawing attention to this and suggesting a reason for it.

But it also shows that the temperature trends after 1960 are similar to the overall trend (0.85 cf 0.91°C/century).  And the trend before 1960 is also similar (0.7°C/century). So much for that troll meme!

Mind you, we have to acknowledge that  the statistical significance of the smaller data sets are inevitably lower (although the 1940-1960 period has a range of 2.4 – 6.3°C/century at the 95% confidence level). The table provides an idea of the statistical significance.

Period Trend °C/century 95% confidence 90% confidence
1009-1959 0.69 -0.15 -1.54 -0.01 – 1.40
1960-2009 0.85 0.03 -1.67 0.17 -1.53
1909-2009 0.91 0.62 – 1.19 0.67 – 1.14

Remember this data is for only seven stations, so determining trends over shorter times inevitably faces problems of statistical significance.

However, we do have data for the 11 stations where no adjustments were required. I have plotted that below.

Remember, different stations so results will differ, but the statistical significance will be better because there are more stations. The trend here for 1960 – 2009 is 1.12°C/century. And the ranges:

0.39 – 1.86 at the 95% level; 0.51 – 1.74 at the 90% confidence level.

This means that if 20 different sets of measurements were made over that period at these stations only one trend would be outside the range 0.4 -1.9°C/century.

I know that Leyland, Treadgold and their organisations will keep pushing this meme of no warming after 1960. But they are completely wrong. The data shows otherwise.

Not that this has stopped them in the past.

Similar articles

Enhanced by Zemanta
About these ads

27 responses to “Another local climate change denial meme

  1. Richard C (NZ)

    A challenge to the Climate Conversation Group, Climate Science Coalition, Hot Topic, Open Parachute and NIWA.

    1) Plot a 15 year moving average of the 7SS NZTR composite actual temperatures 1909-2009

    http://www.niwa.co.nz/__data/assets/excel_doc/0011/99965/NZT7_Data_FINAL.xls

    Excel: Copy the 7SS composite actuals to A1

    Tools – Add Ins – Data Analysis – Moving average – A1:A100 to B1

    Insert Chart B15:B100

    What do you see?

    2) De-trend the 7SS actuals for the normal warming since 1850 that the latest science shows to be 0.5 C/100 yr that is accounted for by solar variation and climatological causes or use the IPCC figure of 0.45 C if living in the past is your preference.

    Excel:

    Create a column 1850 to 2009 (A1) [Start the series 1850 1851 1852 then extend using the bold + bottom right corner of the last entry]

    Create a column 0 to 159 (B1) [Use the bold + as before]

    Create a column (C1) =0.005*(B1)+13.6 [Use the bold + again to extend to row 160]

    Now copy in the 7SS composite actuals from row 59 to 159 (D60)

    Calculate the anomaly (E60) =(C60-D60)*-1 and extend to row 160

    Plot a 15 yr moving average using the technique in 1).

    What do you see?

    3) Perform a linear regression on the 15 year moving average de-trended anomaly data.

    Excel: Tools – Data Analysis – Regression

    For 1923 (E74) to 1953 (E104)

    What do you see?

    For 1953 (E104) to 1963 (E114)

    What do you see?

    For 1963 (E114) to 2009 (E160)

    What do you see?
    —————————————————————————————————————————-
    Note: the column:row addresses have not been checked on an actual spreadsheet so you’ll have to check for yourself.

    Like

  2. Richard C – care to explain what point you are making and the point of this exercise. I can’t get past “Excel: Copy the 7SS composite actual s to A1″
    How can one plot a single column.? You have not included the year column. What are you plotting against?

    Why the 15 year averaging?

    And then the “De-trend” step 2 – what justification is there for subtracting the quoted formula. You can’t apply such global “corrections” to regional data?

    What is this anomaly you are talking about? – that is not the way anomalies are calculated?

    Could you provide a justification and description of the steps. it just seems like naive playing around to me as you have described it. What is your point?

    And why are you not commenting on my analysis? At least that is well based.

    Like

  3. Yet you have to admit that the bold font at the very beginning was a nice touch.
    Very dramatic and…well…bold.

    Perhaps if we followed that up in crank font it would be even better?

    Hmm, how would that look?

    A challenge to the Climate Conversation Group, Climate Science Coalition, Hot Topic, Open Parachute and NIWA.

    1) PLOT A 15 YEAR MOVING AVERAGE OF THE 7SS NZTR COMPOSITE ACTUAL TEMPERATURES 1909-2009

    http://www.niwa.co.nz/__data/assets/excel_doc/0011/99965/NZT7_Data_FINAL.xls

    EXEL: COPY THE 7SS COMPOSITE ACTUALS TO A1

    TOOLS – ADD INS – DATA ANALYSIS – MOVING AVERAGE – A1:A100 TO B1

    INSERT CHART B15:B100

    WHAT DO YOU SEE?

    2) DE-TREND THE 7SS ACTUALS BLAH, BLAH, BLAH… ”

    Yep, that’s much more challanging.
    What do you see, huh?
    Well?
    (…taps foot impatiently….)
    WHAT DO YOU SEE??????!?!?!?
    ;)

    All science, all the time.
    And it’s right here happening on a blog instead of some stuffy old peer-reviewed science journal or something.
    Aren’t we lucky?

    Like

  4. Richard C (NZ)

    @Ken

    I thought I’d provided enough hand holding – perhaps not. You need this as shown:-

    Tools – Add Ins – Data Analysis – Moving average – A1:A100 to B1

    to plot the 15 year moving average. Once you do this you will see what I’m on about.

    “And then the “De-trend” step 2 – what justification is there for subtracting the quoted formula. You can’t apply such global “corrections” to regional data?”

    Why not? It’s been done to HADCrut3 by a cooperative effort between the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), UK and NIWA inform us that the NZTR is consistent with the global trend.

    “that is not the way anomalies are calculated?”

    It is still an anomaly (a departure from norm), but you are used to the 30 year flat average baseline “normal climate” that gets moved every 30 years. I could use a 26 C “normal” baseline for the last billion years but starting at 1850 is clear of the last mini ice age and more useful. Obviously if the global trend plunges into a new minimum, a new “normal” will have to be established. If you are following the papers that have been published this year in this area (3 at least) you will know what it’s about – if you haven’t, then you’ve got some reading to do.

    @Cedric

    This challenge has been duplicated to all those listed plus other much larger audiences than this so I’m already addressing feedback.

    Like

  5. This challenge has been duplicated to all those listed….

    So what?

    …plus other much larger audiences…

    Yeah, it’s called “The Internet”.

    Your “challenge” is on the Internet.
    (giggle)

    …so I’m already addressing feedback.

    Yeah, feedback from the audience…on the Internet.

    Do you realise how stupid this is?
    Any angry crank out there in his mother’s basement can do what you are doing.
    Five minutes plus some spam posting and you’re done.

    Don’t you see how you are selling your genius short?
    Enter the scientific arena.
    Claim that Nobel prize.
    Fame and glory is soon to be yours as the man that toppled the global scientific conspiracy.

    Forget ego-stroking on the Internet and enter the scientific arena.

    Michael Shermer: Baloney Detection Kit

    Like

  6. Richard C (NZ)

    Cedric, have you overdosed on angry pills?

    Like

  7. You are a crank posting a “challenge” over the Internet.

    I’m not angry at you. I’m laughing at you, you silly man.

    Enter the scientific arena.
    Claim your Nobel Prize.
    Fame and fortune is soon to be yours.
    Really.
    :)

    Like

  8. Richard C its not a matter if holding habds. Its a matter of explaining and justifying your huge adjustments. Your description comes across as childish gobble de gook.

    What are you plotting your 15 year averages against?

    You are way off beam with claiming you can arbitrarily deduct something you have invented from global patterns. The natural variations have not been linear. For example NIWA pointed out the effect of local regional winds in the 1949-1960 period. You can’t justify what you are doing (nor have you presented any conclusions).

    What is wrong with the methods used by NIWA (and mine above)? Why would one even think of playing around with the data in the way you have? It is simple to show the trends and their significance. In itself the data doesn’t reveal mechanisms. Our understanding of human inputs to climate change are based on global data where trends are more reliable. One can’t derive such huge conclusions from such a small amount of regional data.

    Where are your justifications?

    Why talk about anomalies? You appear to have used the reconstructed data so why bother? You use anomalies to enable combination from different sites – you are not using separate site data. So why bother with that step? And you make no attempt to justify it!

    Why do 15 year averages – and then regressions after such unwarranted manipulations? The results must be meaningless.

    Come on Ruchard C. Give us a simple description of your manipulations (extreme adjustments) and reasons for them. And then give us a summary of your conclusions.

    Currently your comment has no meaning. It just looks foolish.

    Like

  9. Richard C (NZ)

    “What are you plotting your 15 year averages against? ”

    Good grief, this is like pulling teeth. Just follow the instructions.

    1 Copy the composite actuals into A1
    2 Select Tools-Data Analysis-Moving Average
    3 Enter Input Range – Interval (15) – Output Range
    4 Select Insert – Chart

    How hard can that be?

    “You are way off beam with claiming you can arbitrarily deduct something you have invented from global patterns. ”

    If I am by your reasoning then so are these two organisations: Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU).

    Like

  10. So Richard C you don’t know what you are plotting your 15 year averages against, do you?

    OK you are claiming that other people have performed a similar procedure. Please provide the reference to a report or publication describing their work. Preferably a link.

    If you are at all genuine this will not be a problem for you, will it?

    Like

  11. If I am by your reasoning then so are these two organisations: Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU).

    Have they spammed the internet with challenges too?
    Golly.
    (giggle)

    Like

  12. Richard Christie

    I think RichardC is alerting us to http://www.friendsofginandtonic.org/
    Heh heh

    Like

  13. Denial Depot and now Friends of Gin and Tonic?
    That’s made my day.
    Thanks for the heads-up. ;)

    I love to ridicule cranks.
    They have these sad, little fantasies of overturning climatology and all the supporting physical sciences. Sure, they never amounted to much in their ordinary lives but now they have one last shot at glory from the anonimity of the Internet.
    They will succeed where the creationists have failed.
    Really.

    They will claim that Nobel Prize and defeat the “Hard Left Marxists” and all their relatives will have to pay a little more respect to their crazy old uncle at family gatherings.
    Five minutes research on the Internet, a few calculations on a napkin and off they go….marching bravely into the welcoming, softy, fuzzy land of the Krackpot Kingdom where a comfy chair, a nice cup of tea and a host of Monckton playmates await them.

    Like

  14. Richard C (NZ)

    “So Richard C you don’t know what you are plotting your 15 year averages against, do you? ”

    Plot against a numerical series 1 – 86 or dates 1923 – 2009. take your pick.

    “Please provide the reference to a report or publication describing their work. Preferably a link. ”

    The Variable Solar Dynamo and the Forecast of Solar Activity; Influence on Surface Temperature

    De Jager and Duhau. 2011

    From the book “Global Warming in the 21st Century”

    http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2010-Variable-solar-dynamo3.pdf

    Reconstruction of solar spectral irradiance since the Maunder minimum

    N. A. Krivova, L. E. A. Vieira and S. K. Solanki, 2010

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JA015431.shtml

    On the recovery from the Little Ice Age

    Akasofu 2010

    http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217&JournalID=69#abstract

    IPCC AR4

    WGI 2007

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

    Next topic:- Polynomial trends

    Like

  15. Love that Richard – looks like a more “sensible” version of what Richard C (NZ) is suggesting!

    Like

  16. Richard C (NZ). At last some references. Strange though – none of them support what you are suggesting. None of them actually attempt to “correct” regional data for a global trend. Can you not see that? They don’t support you massive adjustments to the data!

    So – why apply the 15 year averaging, why subtract the “adjustment”? Give you justifications.

    And why not comment on the analysis I have provided in my post? Do you not understand it?

    What is your relationship to the Climate Conversation group and the Climate science Coalition? Are you a member? I notice you are continually commenting at Treadgopd’s blog. He seems to agree with you. What are those organisations saying about your little “analysis.”?

    I note you provide a link to the contents page of the IPCC report Vol 1. In that report there is a description of using research such as that you quote to derive models for natural effects and to determine if these explain the global data for temperature changes. I described this in my post Climate change is complex.

    Have a look at that. The relevant figure is from the IPCC report – Figure 9.5 – AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. Fig a demonstrates that we can explain temperature changes if we include human influences.

    Figure b is a similar plot using simulations which consider only the natural influences on climate. The individual simulations are shown as thin blue curves. The thick blue line is the multi-model ensemble mean.

    So you can see it is impossible to explain the temperature changes of the last 50 years without including human influences.

    If you feel that your analysis is supported by your friends at Treadgold’s blog I will post a more thorough analysis of the mistakes in it.

    Like

  17. Richard C (NZ)

    “none of them support what you are suggesting”

    All of them do either explicitly or implicitly.

    Akasofu 0.5 C per century since 1850.
    IPCC 0.45 C per century since 1850.

    And the other two implicitly – read the science.

    “So – why apply the 15 year averaging, why subtract the “adjustment”? Give you justifications.”

    If you don’t understand data smoothing then it’s up to you to learn – not for me to teach. I’m a student as much as anyone.

    “What is your relationship to the Climate Conversation group and the Climate science Coalition? Are you a member?”

    Not a member .

    ” What are those organisations saying about your little “analysis.”?”

    Nothing yet (BTW, are you a policeman – you ask a lot of questions).

    “So you can see it is impossible to explain the temperature changes of the last 50 years without including human influences.”

    You justify your case by “simulations”? The “natural forcings” of the simulations are deficient (TSI only) and neither the anthropogenically forced or naturally forced can mimic the 1930-1950 warm phase (See the plot’s you’ve posted).

    Also please quantify “temperature changes”. The science I’ve referenced explains 0.8 C since 1850 (159 yrs) by solar variation and climatological causes but you are using a truncated 50 yr time-frame (the up-swing of a warm phase). How exactly can you explain the 1940 – 1977 cooling using that rationale?

    Like

  18. Richard C – you are completely wrong. None of those references “actually attempt to “correct” regional data for a global trend.” You are purposely or naively confusing that with the idea that they have determined a natural global trend. That is not the same thing. They did not use the trend to “correct” regional data as you try to do.

    “If you don’t understand data smoothing then it’s up to you to learn – not for me to teach. I’m a student as much as anyone.”
    Yes Richard C – I understand moving averages, and their limitations. But why use them here? It is one thing to create a visual presentation evening out scatter – but to then apply a regression. This little trick enables you to imply a statistical significance which actually isn’t there. Did you bother comparing regressions with and without smoothing?

    OK we expect student’s to make mistakes – but it is rather arrogant to claim a legitimacy for your mistake over the work of experts, isn’t it?

    Does it not worry you that smoothing brings in data outside the ranges you are applying the regression?

    And this on top of your huge data adjustments which are just not justified at all.

    The “1940 – 1977 cooling” has long been explained by human inputs – in this case aerosols.

    But the elephant in the room is why bother with the sort of unjustified manipulations you have performed. What have you concluded from this?

    1: That there is a large temperature increase in 1940-1960. Well NIWA plointed that out and showed how it involved regional effects. My analysis above showed that this increase was statistically significant. You perform unwarranted adjustments and find an increase which would be naivley wrong to perform a statistical analysis on (because of your smoothing).

    2: That overall the temperature has increase since 1909 and since 1960. Except you have truncated your range by smoothing and removed credible statistical analysis. And you have reduced the temperature increase from 0.9 to 0.4°C/century (or 0.5 °C/century) by performing an unwarranted “adjustment” of 0.5 °C/century. That is a lot of work for nothing. Can’t you do the simple sum 0.4 = 0.9 – 0.5? – although why should you – it’s not justified.

    No – I am not being a policeman. Its just that you are a continuous commenter at Treadgold’s blog (one of a very small handful.). As he has not yet pointed out the mistakes with your analysis I could assume he accepts it (which wouldn’t surprise me) But is he prepared to have his organisation be credited with such a faulty analysis?

    Treadgold has always assured me that he has a “scientific team” which “wishes to remain anonymous.” if this were an example of their skill one can see why.

    Perhaps I should email him to check what their attitude is towards this rubbish.

    Don’t forget that are taking legal action and if this sort of analysis is introduced as evidence of their level of understanding it would be another nail in their coffin – wouldn’t it?

    Like

  19. Richard C (NZ)

    “1: That there is a large temperature increase in 1940-1960.”

    1952 – 1962 prior to the supposed CO2 forced warming (cooling prior to 1952).

    And just for fun

    Linear regression 1999 – 2009 (11 years) -0.05145 C (unadjusted)

    -0.468 degrees per century
    ———————————————————————————————-
    The Primary and Secondary Climate Drivers.

    A compilation of papers and articles evidencing solar, lunar, cosmic ray and celestial influence on climate change (in addition to those already referenced).

    Primary:-

    Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?

    M Lockwood, R G Harrison, T Woollings and S K Solanki 2010

    http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/j293.pdf

    Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage–a missing link in solar-climate relationships.

    Svensmark – Fris-Christensen, 1996

    http://www.fakeclimate.com/arquivos/Internacional/HenrikSvensmark/svensmark_96_variations%20of.pdf

    Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes

    B. A. Laken, D. R. Kniveton, and M. R. Frogley 2010

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10941/2010/acp-10-10941-2010.pdf

    Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds

    H Svensmark, Bondo, and J Svensmark 2100

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/svensmark-forebush.pdf

    Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?

    Shaviv and Veizer, 2003

    http://www.juniata.edu/projects/oceans/GL111/celestialdriverofclimate.pdf

    Cosmic Rays and Climate

    Shaviv

    http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate

    The Watts and Copeland Sinusoidal Solar-Lunar Model

    WHAT IS THE MAIN FACTOR CONTROLLING THE MURRAY DARLING BASIN SYSTEM RAINFALL (SOUTH QLD-NEW SOUTH WALES-VICTORIA & SOUTH AUSTRALIA AREAS)?

    Holton, 2010

    http://www.holtonweather.com/WHAT%20IS%20THE%20MAIN%20FACTOR%20CONTROLLING%20THE%20MURRAY%20DARLING%20BASIN%20SYSTEM%20RAINFALL.pdf

    THE SUN DEFINES THE CLIMATE

    Abdussamatov (translated from Russian by Lucy Hancock)

    http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf

    SOLAR ACTIVITY: A DOMINANT FACTOR IN CLIMATE DYNAMICS

    Landscheidt

    http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

    New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?

    Gleissberg cycles, Barycentrism

    Landscheidt

    http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm

    SOLAR CYCLE 24: EXPECTATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

    Archibald 2009

    http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf

    EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR A CELESTIAL ORIGIN OF THE CLIMATE OSCILLATIONS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

    Scafetta, Submitted May 2010

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf

    The role of the sun in climate forcing

    Beer, Mende, Stellmacher 2000

    http://pages-osm.org/products/books/qsr2000-papers/beer.pdf

    Secondary:-

    Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña

    Landscheidt

    http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm

    Connection between ENSO phenomena and solar and geomagnetic activity

    Nuzhdina 2001

    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/30/15/64/PDF/nhess-2-83-2002.pdf

    Natural forcing of climate during the last millennium: fingerprint of solar variability Low frequency solar forcing and NAO

    Swingedouw, Terray, Cassou, Voldoire, Salas-Mélia and Servonnat 2010

    http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2010/EGU2010-4811.pdf

    Südpazifische Oszillation und Kosmische Strahlung

    Borchert, 2010

    Abstract
    It was found that the South Pacific Oscillation (SO) is influenced by Sun activity similar to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Especially during the warming period from 1980 to 2009 the oscillation of Sunwind – Index “aa “ was in good resonance with the delayed South Pacific Oscillation. The same observation was found between the Oscillation of Cosmic Radiation, which is controlled by the Forbush – Reduction by the magnetic fields of the sun protons of the Sunwind and the delayed SO.

    http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/SO_Borchert.pdf

    Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature

    McLean, de Freitas, and Carter 2009.

    http://www.auscsc.org.au/images/PDF/influenceofenso.pdf

    Like

  20. …if this sort of analysis is introduced as evidence of their level of understanding it would be another nail in their coffin – wouldn’t it?

    And so the rotten edifice of corruption that is modern climatology begins to crumble.
    “Oh woe” cries NASA.
    “Oh woe” wails the Royal Society.
    “Oh woe” (insert any science community of your choice on the planet here).
    Richard C is all a-quiver. His Nobel Prize, his precious, will soon be his.

    “If you don’t understand data smoothing then it’s up to you to learn – not for me to teach. I’m a student as much as anyone.”

    Ah, spoken like a true semi-retired refrigerator repairman with access to the internet and way too much time on his hands…
    Welcome to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    Like

  21. Richard Cumming – you seem to be away with the birds. You have been doing nothing to justify your manipulation of the NIWA data. You don’t even draw your own conclusions. And you refuse to respond to my critique.

    At the same time you ignore the content of my post – that is at least rude on your part. But perhaps you didn’t understand the analysis. After all your manipulation of excel is rather childish.

    Posting multiple links in comments only gets you held up in spam ( and relies on my intervention) – and these add nothing. Except show your ability and desire to cherry pick references to “prove” your forgone conclusion.

    That sort of behavior discredits you.

    Come on, what about responding to my points and questions? Or do you have trouble following them?

    Like

  22. Richard Cumming – care to provide us with your 95% confidence data for your 1999 – 2009 regression??

    Come on – don’t be shy. If you are prepared to quote a figure like that you should be prepared to describe its statistical significance.

    That’s if you are being honest.

    Like

  23. Silence from Cumming!! Does he not understand my question.

    Well the result he should have quoted fro 1999-2009 was -12.0 – 1.7 degree/century. In no statistically significant increase or decrease.

    That is the problem when you take such a short time range. It is childishly naive to do so.

    Like

  24. Ah yes but when he comes back with a sciency in-depth rebuttal then, Ken, the shoe will be on the other hand!

    Just you wait.
    Any minute now.

    (…time passes…)

    Any minute now.

    Like

  25. Richard C (NZ)

    Ken, I’ve thought about your objection to my subtraction of a global trend from a regional dataset and it does have merit.

    What is required then is apportionment of the 0.5 C/century between Northern and Southern Hemispheres.

    I propose using landmass distribution North : South so that:-

    39 : 19 = 67.2% : 32.8% = 0.336 C : 0.164 C

    This gives a normal SH rise of +0.14 C/century rise that can be subtracted from the 7SS NZTR.

    What say you?

    Like

  26. Ken, I’ve thought about your objection to my subtraction of a global trend from a regional dataset and it does have merit.

    Hmm, now there’s something you don’t see every day.

    (..grabs popcorn, gets comfortable…)

    Like

  27. I think Richard C just played this card

    Denialists’ Deck of Cards: The 8 of Spades, “Duh!”
    Category: Denialists’ Deck of Cards
    Posted on: May 18, 2007 2:06 PM, by Chris H

    “Duh!” is one of my favorite lobbyist tactics. I’ve seen it used many times.

    With “Duh!,” the denalist deliberately misunderstands, misinterprets, or plays dumb when presented with others’ questions or proposals. One is sometimes amazed at how smart an industry lobbyist can be until they’re asked a question they don’t want to answer!
    In the Hewlett-Packard pretexting scandal, this exchange between Rep. Eshoo and Fred Adler, a company investigator, is an excellent “duh” moment:

    ESHOO: …If you say no, then I’ll accept your answer.

    ADLER: OK.

    ESHOO: You said no?

    ADLER: No in regard to what?

    Like

Leave a Reply - please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s