[Vaughan Pratt realizes what a fool he was to expect at least one climate blog on the planet capable of forming a consensus about the ten-year-multiple rule.]
> Vaughan, with an increase of CO2 they expected a rise in temp. Compared to the data and models and the expectations, there is clearly seems to be a pause.
You know, it never occurred to me that people might be deliberately jerking me around. But after Baa Humbug’s post just now falsely accusing me of calling 9 years a decade when I’d been working with a genuine 10 years, and now this post from Kermit completely and totally and utterly ignoring the distinction I just drew between 2000-2010 and 1970-2010, suddenly the scales have fallen from my eyes.
These bastards have been lying through their teeth all this time and I never realized it.
What a fool I am. What a moron. A nincompoop. An idiot. An ignoramus. A schmuck.
How could I have let them take me in like this? What was I thinking?
They lie about expectations. They claim there is a pause when there is none. They say that a “decade” is 2001-2010 when that’s obviously nine years, not ten, and moreover nine years cherry-picked to hide the rise, easily done in such narrow windows (the more obvious nine-year period would be 2000-2009, if you see nothing wrong with picking 2001-2010 instead then I have shares in several Manhattan bridges for you). When you compare a real decade, 2000-2010, with their fake decade, you realize they’ve ripped you off by 12 months, cunningly removing the front end in order to hide the rise.
Charlatans. Frauds. Cheats. Con men. Crooks. Deceivers. Shysters. Swindlers. Tricksters. Call the climate police. (Why am I getting a busy signal?)
Ok, let’s consider this calmly. Although not everyone agrees that ten years is worth looking at (Ben Santer insists on a minimum of 17), let’s play along with those who think for whatever reason that ten years is reasonable.
Now if we’re allowed to pick any ten year window whatsoever, say from March 1993 to February 2003, then there are a lot of windows that will show warming, and a lot that will show cooling. With that approach no one wins and no one is convinced.
For the three centuries 1800 to 2100, I suggest that for those who believe ten years is sufficient to decide whether the temperature is going up, or going down, that we look at each of the 30 decades starting on January 1800 and ending on December 2099 (which is the last month of data woodfortrees.org gives you when you specify 2100 as the “To:” year, when the time comes, that is).
What this means is that every “From:” or “To:” date that you type into woodfortrees.org, between 1800 and 2100 (looking to the future here), must be “congruent to zero mod ten” as they say in some academic circles, or a multiple of ten in others, or a year ending in 0 in yet others.
I’m not trying to push this down anyone’s throat, I’m just bringing it up for suggestion. If you have a system that you believe is fairer, e.g. from and to the ides of March in years congruent to 7 mod 10, by all means bring it up for discussion.
Ben Santer has already ruled himself out with his 17-year rule. This game is only for those wanting to bet on or otherwise point to ten-year windows.
The ten-year-multiple rule is that all years must end in 0, with no fractions allowed.
Who is for the ten-year-multiple rule, and why? Who is against, and why? Who doesn’t like ten years in the first place, and why?
This will be an interesting test of whether the only unbigoted climate blog on the planet can agree on anything. If it can’t, the inevitable inference is too horrible to contemplate: every climate blog on the planet capable of forming a consensus is bigoted. (If you didn’t follow that logic you were asleep in logic class.)