The Holocene Deniers

[thaumaturgy]

Until I better understand what Glenn is plotting in the standard deviation plots I'll settle right now for showing the horrible performance of the Chippewa and Wooster stations.

Hold onto your chairs, this is pretty shocking:

Yes, for >37,000 days worth of data collected there's a median difference of 0 degrees F (mean of -0.06degF)

How can these people call themselves "observers"?

(And when you remove only two outliers, one at +70 and one at -91 this is what the picture looks like:

Yikes!)

 

[juvenissun]

Juvenissun, what do you think I've been doing here?

Talking about basic statistics?

 

[grmorton]

Glen, when you start with this assertion, the rest of your post should be dedicated to support it. Instead, you set up another assertion and argue for that:

Thaumaturgy in post 10 raised the issue of my qualifications. You are too lazy to go back and actually look up what happened. He is the one who has constantly brought it up. I haven't. Get your facts straight before you make charges.

So, you do nothing to support your assertion that thau was wrong about you constantly flogging your credentials (which anyone can see you doing throughout the thread). This is called being dishonest, Glen. You attempt to mislead your public into thinking you supported your claim when, in fact, you supported a completely different one, irrelevant to your original assertion.

Very weak, Glen.

Stupid very stupid Thistle. I haven't. See this is your methodolgy. You believe whatever Thaumaturgy says regardless of whether or not it is true. Go look ding-dong at the facts. Post 10 by Thaumaturgy was the first reference to my credentials.

The only time I raised it thistledong is when I mentioned my two articles after Thau tried to say tHat my understanding of statistics was at a high school level.

Once again, get your facts straight. If you behave in global warming like you do on this, why should anyone believe you.

 

[grmorton]

Glen, for the record, I'm done assuming you don't actually read our posts. I'm just going to assume that when you misrepresent a post, you are actually lying. So, let's have a look at this latest collection of lies:

I win my prognostication. I knew you would say I was a liar again. I made this prediction a long time ago. You surprised me by not using it sooner.

Lie number 1. Look back to the beginning of the thread, before I realized that Glen isn't interested in any data except the data that can be skewed to look as if it supports his argument. I stopped posting data, as I don't like it when Glen rapes science.

The above is a data-free statement.

True, I did. I did so to highlight the ridiculousness of Glen's repeated posting of images showing temperature measuring stations in various poor sitings. This argument of Glen's seem to be the only real one he has, and it has been shown mathematically to be insignificant to the over all data. Glen, of course, doesn't like this, so he tries to deflect by posting more pictures.

It only showed how silly and lacking in understanding of science you are. Criticism of methodology is part and parcel of good science. The problem is that you don't want any of your precious beliefs criticised. I am the one person in this thread who has posted more data than anyone else. You post pictures of hair. I post charts and graphs and pictures of stations, which are relevant.

I think you would not be troubled by measuring something with a rubber band tape measure because you certainly aren't worried about heat sources next to air conditioners or 6+ degrees standard deviation in measurments that should be the same. Yep, you are quite the 'scientific' one with your hair pictures.

Lie number 2. I did no such thing, which Glen has already been told. I responded to someone wondering why we were so mean to Glen. I argued that his general unlikeability was a major contributing factor to this. Glen has since made a straw man of this, claiming I said being unlikeable has an effect on one's ability to present a valid case. I didn't, so Glen is lying.

I am not going to look up my reply because I don't have time nor will it matter to you since you don't care about data, but I made that comment and you said nothing at the time. If you had felt that it was the wrong thing to say you should have objected at the time.

I'm going to hardball this and call it lie number 3. It is possible that Glen, with his mediocre intellect has simply misunderstood this, but I don't think so. I am not a scientist, and I don't fully grasp all the math Thaumathurgy has posted. However, it is ONLY Thaumaturgy that has posted any math. Glen's response has been "the math is wrong", but he hasn't shown it. This makes it very easy to determine who is more likely to be right.

No, my response has not been that the math is wrong. That is your error. I have said that the MODEL is wrong. Mathematics is nothing but a model of reality. If the math models reality then the math can say something important. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. The math can be right and the model wrong and that would lead to a wrong conclusion.

This is why children shouldn't try to play in the big leagues of science.

Lie number 4. Another straw manning of one of my posts, where I put forth a "hypothesis" of mine that connects global warming denialism with creationism, and highlighted that the posters in this thread supporting Glen's argument are some of the most prolific and least scientific minded creationists on these boards. I never argued what Glen is claiming I did.

YOu really do like that bully word 'lie' don't you. Anyone who disagrees with you is a liar, right?

It is good that you appreciate your supporters, Glen, because if my "hypothesis" is correct, those are about the only people you will have supporting you.

I don't care if I have supporters or not. IF the data supports me, that is all that matters. Data is king, not supporters and certainly not obsequious sychophantic supporters like you are to Thau.

As the argument Glen is trying to make here is another lie, I'm going to go ahead and call this lie number 6. Thaumaturgy did make a very prophetic post on the first page of this thread where he basically outlined Glen's entire faulty argument before Glen even had a chance to start. Of course Glen found this to be a bit humiliating, as it showed how predictable Glen really is. Now, Thaumaturgy claimed that Glen has flaunted his credentials throughout the thread, a fact that is clear to anyone reading it. Glen claims this is false because Thaumaturgy brought up Glen's credentials first.

And this I will NOW call your lie--the first time I have used that word of others in this thread. Thaumaturgy even felt bad (for a day) about what he did. He was the first to raise my credentials, not me. So now you lie.

In other words, this is the timeline:

1. Thaumaturgy predicts Glen will flaunt his credentials
2. Glen flaunts his credentials a lot.
3. Thaumaturgy claims Glen has flaunted his credentials.
4. Glen says he hasn't because Thaumaturgy said Glen would flaunt his credentials, even though he actually has been flaunting his credentials.

Anyone with me thus far? As we can see, Glen's logic here is quite faulty, but that's often the case with practiced liars. When their lies are called out the logic starts to break down.

Fact remains. Thau was the first to bring up my credentials. I raised them once. and that was in a reference to my articles.

See Thistlethorn, facts don't matter to you. ONly belief.

 

[grmorton]

Morlet Waves:

Glenn wanted to show us all the statistical capability of Morlet transforms so he posted this:



Now, if I read his blog correctly, he used the GISS data (among others? he only linked to the GISS data, but he used the strangely vague statement "I take some time series, e.g. GISS", so it's hard to tell exactly what data sets he was looking at). When one plots the GISS data set it that looks like this:

And his calculation using "quantum harmonic oscillators" showed no warming?

Maybe someone should script out exactly what the pictures of the morlet transforms actually show rather than merely "post and run".

If the Morlet Wavelets is so compelling, perhaps it can be explained for everyone, Glenn.

I'd certainly be interested in learning more about this technique, but I have to say right now I'm unconvinced.

The Morlet wavelet is a class of wavelets which have an envelope applied which is gaussian curve. These wavelets are temporally short and can be used to tease out high frequency information in anything they are used with. The Continuous Wavelet transform is one approach, similar to that the blogger used. What he shows is that the pattern in the spectral domain of warming doesn't fit the data of the GISS.

Now, if you dont' know what a Continuous Wavelet transform (and I am not saying that that is the variant he used) is, ,then probably no one understood what I was saying, which is WHY Thau, I am not going to get diverted. You diverted this thread with your 3rd post raising my credentials and now your obsequious goon says I lied about it because you are lying that I have spent the entire thread touting my credentials. I haven't and you know it. Shame on you Thaumaturgy.

You aren't interested in science, you are interested in talking about anything other than the crappy methodology in the temperature stream. And you constantly divert everyone's attention from the data, and get us off track. And you whinge constantly about wanting to make this thread one for specialists, something I will not do.

 

[grmorton]

When look at the chart, the first thing comes to my mind is the effect of weather front. When the cold front passes (normally from NW to SE in that region), the temperature of closed towns will show significant difference. And it makes sense that this temperature difference is larger in the winter and is smaller in the summer.

So, you may pick towns lined up in NE direction and compare it with towns lined up in NW direction. They may show some differences.

This phenomenon happens all the time. Remeber this is the average of 100 years worth of data. Are you saying that on every single day of the year, including July strong cold fronts go by? Isn't that a wee bit over the top? Remember 100 years of average, day by day. This is NOT a chart of the maximum daily temperature difference over a 100 year period but the standard deviations of the average temperature difference of each day in the year.

This amount of variation on each day of the year doesn't bother you? Thermometers next to air conditioners doesn't bother you? It does bother me and I don't care how many people say it shouldn't be a problem it is.

So that we can avoid a moving goal post which is what Thaumaturgy has engaged in, maybe you should state upfront how much error in the daily temperature difference between two towns would you find excessive? Please define it specifically

 

[grmorton]

Biases like this one?

No, more like this one

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG...eatherMNMontevideoMilanHistogram1894-2008.jpg

I averaged the daily temperature differences for each day from 1894 to 2008 and then put them in tenths bins. This is the chart, clearly there is a bias. Of Course thau won't admit that this is a problem

 

[grmorton]

Talking about basic statistics?

And ignoring the physics.

I contend this. If the measurment isn't taken correctly statistics wont fix it.

 

[grmorton]

Here is the average daily temperature difference, averaged for each day of the year from 1948 to 2008. It is then put in a histogram

Here is the average daily temperature difference for each day. Then below is the skewed histogram.

 

[Thistlethorn]

I win my prognostication. I knew you would say I was a liar again. I made this prediction a long time ago. You surprised me by not using it sooner.

Well, I have over time grown extremely tired of your constant lies, so I'm going to start calling them as I see them.

The above is a data-free statement.

No better justification for your lie, then? Heh.

It only showed how silly and lacking in understanding of science you are. Criticism of methodology is part and parcel of good science. The problem is that you don't want any of your precious beliefs criticised. I am the one person in this thread who has posted more data than anyone else. You post pictures of hair. I post charts and graphs and pictures of stations, which are relevant.

Your criticism as thus far been you posting images and thauma telling you, and showing you mathematically how it is irrelevant.

I think you would not be troubled by measuring something with a rubber band tape measure because you certainly aren't worried about heat sources next to air conditioners or 6+ degrees standard deviation in measurments that should be the same. Yep, you are quite the 'scientific' one with your hair pictures.

You have failed to show how the situation is anything like you describe in your silly anecdotes. Instead, thauma has shown mathematically how you have been wrong in every turn. This has got to be pretty embarrassing for you, Glen, having your ignorance and incompetence paraded around an open forum like this. It's obvious that you've invested quite a lot emotionally into your irrational denial of an entire field of science, so you failing this hard really has to hurt.

I am not going to look up my reply because I don't have time nor will it matter to you since you don't care about data, but I made that comment and you said nothing at the time. If you had felt that it was the wrong thing to say you should have objected at the time.

Ah, you don't have time to justify your lie, but you have time to write snarky replies, gotcha! Man, this is funny.

No, my response has not been that the math is wrong. That is your error. I have said that the MODEL is wrong. Mathematics is nothing but a model of reality. If the math models reality then the math can say something important. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. The math can be right and the model wrong and that would lead to a wrong conclusion.

And you haven't shown this once. Thauma has laid his math out for you, and you have failed to show where he's wrong. Instead, you have simply said that he's wrong. Your failboat is starting to sink here, Glen.

This is why children shouldn't try to play in the big leagues of science.

Feeling the need to bully people again, Glen? When your argument fails (hard) you go for the bully. You are a laughing stock, Glen.

YOu really do like that bully word 'lie' don't you. Anyone who disagrees with you is a liar, right?

No, those who lies are liars, Glen. I showed you six lies that you made in your last post to me. You haven't even tried to justify them. Once again, you, Glen, are a liar because you lie.

I don't care if I have supporters or not. IF the data supports me, that is all that matters. Data is king, not supporters and certainly not obsequious sychophantic supporters like you are to Thau.

The data does not support you, as thau has shown. I make no effort to hide my admiration of a good scientist like thau, especially when he dedicates his time and effort to destroy the argument of a bad scientist, like you.

And this I will NOW call your lie--the first time I have used that word of others in this thread. Thaumaturgy even felt bad (for a day) about what he did. He was the first to raise my credentials, not me. So now you lie.

Nope, I don't lie, you do, or you really don't understand this. I even gave you a timeline.

Fact remains. Thau was the first to bring up my credentials. I raised them once. and that was in a reference to my articles.

No, Glen, you have flaunted yourself plenty of times in this thread. How hard is it to understand that it doesn't matter if thau mentioned your credentials first? You said that you hadn't flaunted your credentials. The reason you gave for this was that thau brought them up first. It's a complete non-sequitur. You are stumbling around in that rotted brain of yours, trying to make sense of concepts easy enough for children.

See Thistlethorn, facts don't matter to you. ONly belief.

You have failed to show this.

 

[thaumaturgy]

...

 

[thaumaturgy]

Talking about basic statistics?

And you don't think that's part of dealing with data?

(You should work for Glenn, if he's hiring he's doing your type of science!)

 

[thaumaturgy]

What he shows is that the pattern in the spectral domain of warming doesn't fit the data of the GISS.

So the big trend upward in the data in the picture isn't showing a general warming trend because a rather complex high frequency analysis doesn't show cyan when color coded?

Now, if you dont' know what a Continuous Wavelet transform (and I am not saying that that is the variant he used) is, ,then probably no one understood what I was saying, which is WHY Thau, I am not going to get diverted.

Well, I'm the first to admit I have no idea about the wavelet transform. So I was hoping to learn a bit. But since you, again, only gave a definition without so much as one number or equation being invoked I'll have to go elsewhere to learn, I suppose.

You diverted this thread with your 3rd post raising my credentials and now your obsequious goon

You're such a school yard bully it undercuts anything of value you might have to say. You call me a "coward", you call Thistles "Thistledong" and now you call him an "obsequious goon"?

You spend much more time "talking" big than you do putting pencil to paper and doing some of your own statistical analysis of data. (But don't worry, I've seen plenty of managers like yourself. Talk,talk talk talk talk talk talk... )

You obviously invest far too much of your time and skill in dreaming up ways to insult others than to actually deal with the data.

says I lied about it because you are lying that I have spent the entire thread touting my credentials.

NOTE: since you are so truthful, you'll note that I have never stated you spent the entire thread touting your credentials. But I have shown how you brought them up after I dropped the topic and apologized for it and went on to only discuss the data.

It was after I spent a huge amount of time parsing your data that you ultimately had to bring up your paycheck and the number of stats papers you've coauthored.

I haven't and you know it. Shame on you Thaumaturgy.

And I never said you spent the entire thread touting your credentials. Shame on you, Glenn.

You aren't interested in science, you are interested in talking about anything other than the crappy methodology in the temperature stream.​

​

MEDIAN = 0degrees F
80% of the data within + 4 degrees F

How much better do you want this?

And you constantly divert everyone's attention from the data, and get us off track. And you whinge constantly about wanting to make this thread one for specialists, something I will not do.

"Specialists"? Sorry, but I'm not a specialist. You aren't one. I am merely asking that we deal with the data as it should be dealt with.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I raised them once. and that was in a reference to my articles.

See Thistlethorn, facts don't matter to you. ONly belief.

(emphasis added)

Here's some facts for you Glenn:

3 does not equal 1:

Three Instances of Glenn Touting His Credentials
​

You know, given what I am paid, I would cite this as evidence that I am pretty smart to get someone to pay me like that for that kind of skill.

(Emphasis added)

Well, I have actually published in statistics and you haven't. ...

Well I have probablly risen higher than you on the science career, having been a director of technology (rather than a lab rat) for a large oil company. I will stand on what I have accomplished. I don't see that much on your part.

I like facts and numbers. I like them a LOT!

 

[thaumaturgy]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG...eatherMNMontevideoMilanHistogram1894-2008.jpgI averaged the daily temperature differences for each day from 1894 to 2008 and then put them in tenths bins. This is the chart, clearly there is a bias. Of Course thau won't admit that this is a problem

There is only one daily temperature difference for each day.

So you can't "average" each daily temperature difference, unless you are averaging the entire data set, which, for the Ohio data set has an average daily difference of -0.06[sup]o[/sup]F

That is problematic for you why?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Here is the average daily temperature difference, averaged for each day of the year from 1948 to 2008. It is then put in a histogram

Here is the average daily temperature difference for each day. Then below is the skewed histogram.

So that I may assess what you have here let me get this straight:

You took every October 1st for every year from 1948 to 2008 and averaged all of them together to get an "average October 1st temperature difference"?

Then you took every October 2nd for every year from 1948 to 2008 and averaged all of them together to get an average October 2nd temperature difference?

Etc.
etc
Etc.

I have to hand it to you, that's a goodly amount of work.

Could you show me, just as an example one histogram of ONE DAY. Say the histogram of difference values for all the October 1sts?

I'd be very interested to see that.

This is a novel way to plot the data. I'm unsure what the implications of it are as of right now.

Did you do this all by hand or are you using a Macro to sort and compile all the data? That's pretty impressive.

If you are using a Macro in Excel, could you please send out the Macro so that others may do the same?

 

[thaumaturgy]

So that I may assess what you have here let me get this straight:

You took every October 1st for every year from 1948 to 2008 and averaged all of them together to get an "average October 1st temperature difference"?

Then you took every October 2nd for every year from 1948 to 2008 and averaged all of them together to get an average October 2nd temperature difference?

Etc.
etc
Etc.

I have to hand it to you, that's a goodly amount of work.

Could you show me, just as an example one histogram of ONE DAY. Say the histogram of difference values for all the October 1sts?

I'd be very interested to see that.

This is a novel way to plot the data. I'm unsure what the implications of it are as of right now.

Did you do this all by hand or are you using a Macro to sort and compile all the data? That's pretty impressive.

If you are using a Macro in Excel, could you please send out the Macro so that others may do the same?

OK, I'm starting to get an idea of what you are doing here, Glenn. Not sure why you are drilling so deeply down to find variances on subsets rather than looking at the entire data set overall.

When I take a step back and look at the overall data set I see this:

Now this is for the entire available daily data set. The median for this data set is 0[sup]o[/sup]F and the mean is 0.53[sup]o[/sup]F

I suppose that if you sub-sample enough you can find all sorts of problems with the data.

Is the goal here to subsample until you find something you are bothered by and then ask everyone to abandon all the surface temperature data?

Is that the goal?

Again, I'll ask:

Are you willing to reconstruct the entire insurance industry, the entire meteorological sciences, the entire energy sector supply and pricing structures?

Because that is what you will end up having to do.

Now while no one likes to pay insurance premiums and people complain about the weather, you are on the verge here of telling us about a century's worth of work in a huge variety of fields you are not directly invovled in are going to have to go out the window.

All because you were able to find some places in the record, using anecdotal data that showed upwards of a 1 degree bias for one station versus another?

 

[grmorton]

I have some things I need to get done for a couple of days and it would probably be good to let tempers cool a bit anyway.

I want to say something to my critics here. I have two guys who read my blog, which has much of the same info I post here. One is a physicist for IBM and he started out extremely skeptical of my data. He just emailed me last week saying that he finally agrees with me that one can't use the thermometer data to know what the world temperature is doing. His opinion means a lot more to me than that of anyone here.

The second guy who emails me, commenting on my blog reads it whenever I post a new thread. He is a former chairman of a department of statistics at a major US university. He has never had a problem over the years of our correspondence in telling me he thinks I am wrong. He reads what I write on my blog, much the same as the stuff I post here. Not once has he said that my statistics was flawed. I value his opinion being having been a chairman of the statistics department far more than the stuff put out here by a couple of rank amateurs (one of whom likes to post pictures of hair).

Now, I have said that I would stay as long as it took to give people here the data. I have come to wonder if there IS anyone here who cares about what I am posting. I have no illusions and never had any that I would convince the unconvinceable about global warming. My purpose has never been to convince thau or Gracchus or any of the believers. My purpose has always been to give those who want some counter information that information. If there are those who care about the data I will stick around.

I see little reason to stay if I am talking merely to Thau and thugs. That would be a huge waste of time. So, if there is anyone who likes what I have been posting and would like to see more, please speak up (unlike the snobs who think that YECs are not real people, I don't care what your background is because data is the only thing that matters to me.). If there is no one, then I probably will throw in the towel here.

I am very disappointed in Thaumaturgy, who doesn't have the manhood to publically acknowlegde the simple fact that he was the first one in this thread to raise my qualifications. I find that to be most disturbing about him because it says he has no honor and is no gentleman. It says he is dishonest.

Back in a couple of days if anyone here cares.

 

[thaumaturgy]

HOW BAD IS OKEMAH AND OKMULGEE?

Let's assume that Okemah and Okmulgee have some serious problems. CAN they be counted on to "see" the same warming trends?

Since each year is, in effect, a little "warming trend" from Jan to Aug in North America.

Well, let's rather randomly grab two years, 1913 and 1972 and let's see if they "see" the same warming from January 1st to July 31st.

Let's just PLOT the temperature versus day:

So Okmulgee "sees" a 0.27[sup]o[/sup]/day rise for the first seven months and Okemah "sees" a 0.28 [sup]o[/sup]/day rise for the first seven months

What about 1972?

Okmulgee "Sees" a 0.24[sup]o[/sup]/day rise in the first 7 months and Okema "sees" a 0.23[sup]o[/sup]/day rise in the first 7 months.

These don't like like they are having significant problems in "seeing" the same temperature increases.

 

[Thistlethorn]

I have some things I need to get done for a couple of days and it would probably be good to let tempers cool a bit anyway.

I want to say something to my critics here. I have two guys who read my blog, which has much of the same info I post here. One is a physicist for IBM and he started out extremely skeptical of my data. He just emailed me last week saying that he finally agrees with me that one can't use the thermometer data to know what the world temperature is doing. His opinion means a lot more to me than that of anyone here.

The second guy who emails me, commenting on my blog reads it whenever I post a new thread. He is a former chairman of a department of statistics at a major US university. He has never had a problem over the years of our correspondence in telling me he thinks I am wrong. He reads what I write on my blog, much the same as the stuff I post here. Not once has he said that my statistics was flawed. I value his opinion being having been a chairman of the statistics department far more than the stuff put out here by a couple of rank amateurs (one of whom likes to post pictures of hair).

Now, I have said that I would stay as long as it took to give people here the data. I have come to wonder if there IS anyone here who cares about what I am posting. I have no illusions and never had any that I would convince the unconvinceable about global warming. My purpose has never been to convince thau or Gracchus or any of the believers. My purpose has always been to give those who want some counter information that information. If there are those who care about the data I will stick around.

I see little reason to stay if I am talking merely to Thau and thugs. That would be a huge waste of time. So, if there is anyone who likes what I have been posting and would like to see more, please speak up (unlike the snobs who think that YECs are not real people, I don't care what your background is because data is the only thing that matters to me.). If there is no one, then I probably will throw in the towel here.

I am very disappointed in Thaumaturgy, who doesn't have the manhood to publically acknowlegde the simple fact that he was the first one in this thread to raise my qualifications. I find that to be most disturbing about him because it says he has no honor and is no gentleman. It says he is dishonest.

Back in a couple of days if anyone here cares.

Then allow me to say how disappointed I am at you, Glenn. You have done great things to debunk creationism, and you serve as a shining example of someone who can realize that religious dogma isn't evidence, and dare to go where the evidence takes you.

I have discovered that you are the origins of the concept of "Morton's Demon", and I kick myself for not realizing it earlier.

Now, I see you here, stubbornly refusing to realize that your indictment of an entire established field of science is going to take more than a couple of pictures of thermometers close to air conditioners, especially when mathematically shown that those few instances out of thousands don't play a major part in the overall data, and are already being compensated for. Morton's Demon is alive and well in you still, Glenn, but it has changed focus.

Your continued mis characterization of dissenting posts speaks of someone who's not intellectually honest, a characteristic I thought was a given in you prior to actually encountering you. The harshness of my posts here, I will admit, is tainted by my huge disappointment.