Dimming the sun: The answer to global warming?

[Lord of Planar]

No, he didn't. That's exactly the point. There is nothing scientific about his work. It's not surprising, though, that you are apparently unable to tell the difference between real science and ridiculous propaganda like this.

Please elaborate.

 

[Lord of Planar]

In 2007 when he wrote that... piece... 1936 was ranked at something like 39th for average annual temperatures in the USA; Archibald declared that it had been the hottest, because it had the hottest summer heatwaves, and cherry-picked five station records to construct a "data set" around his fallacy.

I think you are confusing average annual with a years hottest summers.

Conveniently and more importantly for his propaganda angle, his cherry-picked data also produced the much more obvious and brazen falsehood of suggesting that the early 2000s were up to half a degree cooler than the early 1970s - when in fact they were at least half a degree warmer. It's Grade A bollocks which anyone who's spent more than a couple of months discussing climate should and would know to fact-check. Your alleged 'review' of his work was obviously nothing more than the worthless rubber stamping of a fellow amateur denier - not that we expected anything more than that

But you are OK with AGW papers using cherry picked data, and the IPCC et al.

OK...

Your hypocrisy is showing...

 

[Lord of Planar]

David Archibald is a crank. Mithrae got in first to 'explain why it is wrong' so no need to repeat it. The fact that you couldn't immediately see that it was clearly ridiculous and completely false is a little surprising.

I guess it's 'sciency looking' and supports your extreme 'anything but CO2' confirmation bias, so you swallowed it without question.

You're projecting again. If you seriously can't see the obvious problems with Archibald's blog junk science (linked again below) then: 'Situation normal with you. You don't know what facts are.'

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/Archibald2007.pdf

Again, that graph in the literature specifies "rural." Not "global."

How many time must I repeat a simple truth?

Not my fault you are ignorant to what it is, and cannot find a source to counter his findings.

 

[Into the Night]

First you guys average the daily maximums and daily minimums to come up with the daily average.
Then the daily averages from the year winter and summer are taken to get the yearly average.
Then those yearly averages from across the globe tropics to the poles are averaged. Finally
all the years since 1850 are plotted out to show that the average global temperature increased
from 1850 to 1880, decreased from 1880 to 1910, increased from 1910 to 1945, decreased from
1945 to 1975 (the global cooling episode you guys deny), and increased since 1975 (which you
guys say is entirely due to CO2). After all that averaging it's an increase of about a degree
in over a century and a half. And you guys want me tochange my life style because of that.

From my file of tag lines and smart remarks, there's tha wonderful quote from Dixie Lee Ray:

"Beware of averages. The average person has one breast and one testicle."​

Simple averages don't mean anything.
A statistical summary requires the calculation of the margin of error. That number is not calculated from the data, but from the possible variance of the data.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

I think you are confusing average annual with a years hottest summers.


But you are OK with AGW papers using cherry picked data, and the IPCC et al.

OK...

Your hypocrisy is showing...

There is no data to cherry pick from. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

 

[Steve Case]

Simple averages don't mean anything.
A statistical summary requires the calculation of the margin of error. That number is not calculated from the data, but from the possible variance of the data.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Thanks for the reply, I can't tell if you are trying to school me or just piling on.

 

[Quaestio]

The same old invective and ad hominems​ without any substance. As usual.

Great Jack. You just keep on trusting obvious cranks and crackpots all you want if it makes you feel better.

 

[Quaestio]

I have no idea who David Archibald is or the basis of his theory, but his predictions
could be just as accurate as the IPCC's, with the error margin on the timing.
If the climate latency exists, it exist for everyone's theories.

You really don't know the difference do you?

 

[Quaestio]

Again, that graph in the literature specifies "rural." Not "global."

How many time must I repeat a simple truth?

Not my fault you are ignorant to what it is, and cannot find a source to counter his findings.

That's okay LoP, you just keep on swallowing any old crank's blog pseudoscience propaganda without question when it suits your extreme confirmation bias.

 

[longview]

You really don't know the difference do you?

No, what you do not understand is that the way physics works, is that everyone follows the same rules.
If a lag or latency exists between an perturbation in temperature or energy imbalance and equilibrium,
then it exists for everyone, regardless of what they say causes the perturbation.

 

[Jack Hays]

Great Jack. You just keep on trusting obvious cranks and crackpots all you want if it makes you feel better.

The data will decide this debate.