As far as I’m concerned, it’s a fairly pathetic (if not entirely sick) behaviour to troll around the blogosphere under a series of different pseudonyms to bolster one’s support. You must surely know how weak your argument is if it’s only ever supported by yourself, logging out as one person to log is as another to agree with your original self! It’s basically virtual split personality disorder that one actively decides to indulge in. It really says a lot about a person who goes to such lengths to support themselves and for a host of a blog, dealing with clone trolls as well as trolls is a nightmare.
It’s for this reason, I wish that I had paid more attention to both names discussed in Graham Wayne’s excellent post, Climate change deniers: give ‘em enough rope, and guess what happens?
I was initially drawn to the main character of focus – rogerthesurf – for he has been an occasional irritant of irrationality on this site and Graham explained in very great detail the style of rogerthesurf and why it is a pointless action to engage with this man (which ultimately leads rogerthesurf to celebrate himself on his own space).
I completely over looked the other name mentioned – Elsanasser (or Elsa as her screen name appears) – at my own loss. Elsa appeared on my site soon after this time and started hounding me that the science behind AGW was in fact unscientific. Silly me – I indulged her with explanation, to no avail. The “debate” was stuck on a loop.
Soon “Colin” appeared to support Elsa and I tried again to explain to him also. And then “roger” and then “spyglass”…
I stupidly didn’t look at the IP’s.
Elsa actively trolls the net under various guises, forever asking the same questions and forever ignoring the same answers. This has got to be one of the more insidious and despicable trolls – rendering rogerthesurf and Pete Ridley more garden variety pests. Recent comments on WtD, where “Elsa” has also been lingering, demonstrated that I’m far from the only one who has tried to have a sensible conversation with her. That she bolsters herself as mentioned above is behaviour I simply cannot comprehend as much as her absurd conclusion that no-one answers her after recent discussions on WtD.
Once and for all, I will make sense of her question as best I can and from here on in, she and her many clones (those which I spot) will be banned from commenting on this site entirely.
Today, her “Spyglass” alias again asked the same, endless question;
“The question remains: how would you debunk the theory if it is held to be consistent with the world getting cooler as well as warmer?”
Her obsession lingers around the 20yr period from the 1940’s which didn’t show much of a warming trend. It is, in truth the exact same argument employed by the likes of Monckton and his fans about much of the first decade of the 21st century and is of course, simply cherry picking. It sounds better to say that there wasn’t significant warming for much of the last decade than to say it was the warmest decade on record, doesn’t it? Hence why short term interpretations can give you the wrong idea.
For this “experiment” I took;
- 1880-present temperature anomaly from NASA
- 1959-present CO2 data from Mauna Loa
- 1880-2004 ice core CO2 data from Law Dome
Seeing as Elsa is obsessed over a 20yr period, I uniformly divided to data into 20yr blocks, which gave me group A: [1891-1910, 1911-1930, 1931-1950, 1951-1970, 1971-1990, 1991-2010], however, this “disguises” Elsa’s “cool patch”, so I also created group B: [1880-1899, 1900-1919, 1920-1939, 1940-1959, 1960-1979, 1980-1999].
It should also be noted short term trends are misleading – picking “arbitrary” (actually, the start and finish dates selected by deniers is hardly arbitrary, but rather those specifically designed to provide the most misleading trends) points and exploring the trend over that time period will have no comparable meaning to other trends as discussed above (compared to the standard moving trend approach usually employed). It is for this reason that the values for the 20yr blocks were averaged and expanded for the block so as short term weather events (such as the ENSO among others) did not contaminate the short term interpretation.
This data was then thrown into a graph (fig. 1) – yeah, this is hardcore science on the fringe of our understanding alright!
There is indeed a period over the mid 20th century where temperature values seem to remain fairly stable and in group B, an actually decline observed between the 1940-1959 (0.007oC) block and the 1960-1979 (-0.0075oC) of exactly 0.0145oC (dramatic, no?). There is also a small, but noticeable change in CO2 trends over this time span (also a time coinciding with WWII activity and the subsequent depression – ie. lowered productivity) which matches (dare I say, proceeds before?) the path of both temperature groups A and B.
Far from showing very little relationship, the trend is quite noticeable and coupling it with what we know about the greenhouse effect (such was what occurs to IR when it passes through CO2 gas, or that night warming trends are expected to be greater than day warming trends, for instance) global warming is acting exactly as you would expect. What troubles me most is the very recent data, which coincide with a prolonged solar minimum – what should we expect as solar activity picks up again?
The answer would be to the Elsa clone army that debunking the theory of AGW would require just one of above points of evidence to fall flat on their arse, but so far, the trends do what we expect with an atmosphere with increasing CO2 concentration. The world hasn’t cooled, unless you use cheap tricks to hide the incline (comparing a short term trend to the rest is, as I stated above, illogical). If people like Elsa want to bitch about the difference in the blocks 1940-1959 and 1960-1979 in group B, why not compare 1920-1939 to 1940-1959 (+0.1165oC) or 1960-1979 to 1980-1999 (+0.252oC) of the same group?
I already know the answer to this, however; that doesn’t prove the point that they push beyond all reasonableness. They know the science behind AGW is unscientific, just as anyone from the anti-vaccination groups know vaccination is behind autism, just like creations know God created everything in a stable unchanging state. You cannot reason with somehow who just knows because they just know.
Therefore, I’ve had enough of Elsa and her clones and the broken record in her that keeps repeating the same silly question. I recommend anyone who runs into Elsa, “spyglass” or any other clone who asks a similar question to that quoted above to link back to this page rather than bothering to try to be reasonable. There is no point answering this person.
Eventually, perhaps, she will have to build her own blog where she can have deep and meaningful discussions amongst herself.