Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1 [Archive] - Page 4

boutons_deux

06-16-2012, 04:50 PM

In the AGW denial game, it's really about politics of money and power, not about science, which is why these stupid threads are non-starters.

eg, here's the retrograde assholes exposing their game

Rooting For Failure: Republicans Bash Green Jobs, Clean Energy

Republicans have bullied the clean energy industry for months, pointing to flimsy evidence for why the government should slash funding for the industry, even as Big Oil subsidies continue.

On the heels of passing legislation that slashes clean energy funding 13 times, House Republicans are fulfilling the oil and coal industry’s wish list with next week’s Domestic Energy Production Act.

Although clean energy creates hundreds of thousands of better paying jobs, Republicans looking to gain ground in an election year have disparaged these jobs as less valuable. Mitt Romney’s former economic adviser said as much: “I am buying that they’re rooting against the economy somewhat because they think that the short-term pain of, you know, the next four months is much better than having additional four years of pain under Obama.”

Republicans have made green jobs a political target, at the behest of their oil and coal allies:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said the 1603 tax credit reimbursement program is a “Solyndra-style stimulus program.” This program has created thousands of jobs, 5,000 projects, and helped the industry grow during tough times. “Listen, the American people continue to ask the question, ‘Where are the jobs?’ They deserve answers, and they deserve the truth.”

House Oversight Chair Darrell Issa called green jobs “propaganda” in a recent staff report. Issa also recently released a video making fun of the BLS’s broad definition for green jobs, calling them “groovy.”

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): “This is the no-more-Solyndras amendment,” speaking on his amendment that would ban a loan guarantee program for renewables, even though the program itself has expired.

Jordan labelled green investments wasted dollars: “The president said that we will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And he promised that our country would create millions of green jobs which would help us compete in the global economy. Over three years into this gamble, available evidence demonstrates these efforts have wasted vast sums of taxpayer money and have failed to achieve the stated goals.”

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) at a Feb. 19 news conference: ”There’s a fundamental difference in approach. And this is the challenge that faces us. The reason our economy is stagnant is because we haven’t let the free market work. The government keeps getting in the way. Now is the time to pick the Keystone economy over the Solyndra economy, to pick the American people over big government and to pick prosperity over stagnation.”

Mitt Romney: [Obama] said he was going to create some 5 million green energy jobs. Have you seen those around here anywhere? No, as a matter of fact he’s gone after energy.

Romney says the Chevy Volt, is an “idea whose time has not come,” saying, “I’m not sure America was ready for the Chevy Volt.”

While Republicans call for a “free energy market” devoid of subsidies to clean energy, they continue to support hundred-year-old subsidies for oil and coal. Though the House GOP prefer to point to failures, clean energy is seeing historic levels of investment — reaching $257 billion worldwide — helped by public-private investments in the industry.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/15/500401/rooting-for-failure-republicans-bash-green-jobs-clean-energy/

MannyIsGod

06-16-2012, 04:51 PM

:lol @ logarithmic forcing math

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 04:53 PM

Wait are you sure we can trace it? After all its HARD and COMPLICATED.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1?isAuthorized=no
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2874.1

That still doesn't make your claim valid.

All it implies to me when you provide link after link instead of explaining in your own words, is that you don't understand. Now when you do put it in your own words, it's obvious why you use links. You don't understand the implications of what you think you know!

Really now. Instead of making fun of me when I point out obvious mistakes in what you say, why can't you reassess what you said, correct it or explain it, and way "wooopps" if you were wrong.

Are you standing by your contention that a 1 C increase by CO2 also creates another 1 C increase by increased water vapor?

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 04:53 PM

You still don't understand.
Prove it.

Explain it. In your words, not by links.

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 04:55 PM

Well those others were all from Space. Why bother with getting to Space to measure things (its very hard and complicated to get to space) when you can also measure the radiation coming down and determine what gas emitted it?

https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
And this proves your contention of 1 C and another 1 C in post 735, how?

MannyIsGod

06-16-2012, 04:55 PM

I'll address the subject of water vapor once again since its been brought up. I doubt that Yonivore is going to take anything I say and actually process it in but its a useful exercise for me in explaining these subjects anyway.

Water vapor is definitely the strongest green house gas. Its effect is a little bit more than twice that of CO2. So of course, when someone hears this the intuitive thought is to think that CO2 can't be a huge culprit if a gas that we're not emitting causes more of a green house effect. That being said, water vapor is a feedback and is not a forcing.

There are two main reasons for this. The first is residence time. The atmosphere is a fairly small reservoir when compared to the oceans and even fresh water sources. Residence time is on the order of 10 days.

The second, is that water vapor content in the any given parcel of atmosphere is a function of temperature. How much WV a parcel is able to hold is determined by the temperature that parcel of air is at. When you go above that, you will have precipitation. This is why rain forms as air rises and cools. As the air cools it is no longer to maintain the same level of water vapor as it was when it was warmer and that excess water vapor condenses into precipitation (or at least clouds) and leaves the atmosphere. This is why water has such a low residence time in the atmosphere.

These are the main differences with CO2. If we were emitting water vapor as opposed to CO2 the excess gas would simply leave the system as precipitation and would not buildup and cause a larger greenhouse effect. The saturation of air parcels prevents that from occurring. On the other hand, the mechanisms for taking CO2 of the atmosphere are not as simple as precipitation and the residence time in the atmosphere is much longer (years, not days). However, we're developing a surplus of CO2 in the atmosphere and thereby increasing that residence time by causing "bottlenecks" in the system. This is why CO2 is rising. The system is unable to process the CO2 we put into the atmosphere and it will now wait longer before it is moved through the cycle. This is not the way the water cycle works as I explained above.

A big part of what makes CO2 warming harmful, is that as CO2 increases the temperature of the air it also increases the amount of water vapor the atmosphere is able to hold which then itself adds to the warming. That is what is meant by a feedback. For every degree of Celsius of warming caused by CO2, you can expect another degree to be caused by the water vapor feedback mechanism.

MannyIsGod

06-16-2012, 04:56 PM

And this proves your contention of 1 C and another 1 C in post 735, how?

I understand if you don't realize which of your stupid posts I'm addressing since you make so many stupid posts.

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 04:58 PM

For every degree of Celsius of warming caused by CO2, you can expect another degree to be caused by the water vapor feedback mechanism.
I say bullshit to this. Please support this contention.

MannyIsGod

06-16-2012, 04:59 PM

That still doesn't make your claim valid.

All it implies to me when you provide link after link instead of explaining in your own words, is that you don't understand. Now when you do put it in your own words, it's obvious why you use links. You don't understand the implications of what you think you know!

Really now. Instead of making fun of me when I point out obvious mistakes in what you say, why can't you reassess what you said, correct it or explain it, and way "wooopps" if you were wrong.

Are you standing by your contention that a 1 C increase by CO2 also creates another 1 C increase by increased water vapor?

Prove it.

Explain it. In your words, not by links.

:lol Reading abstracts is too hard for WC.
:lol Needs a parts manual to have things explained to him
:lol Napkin Logarithmic Forcing Math
:lol Solubility Charts
:lol Arguing for stronger H20 Feedback and not even realizing it.

CosmicCowboy

06-16-2012, 05:01 PM

Hey Manny...

Are you working on your batchelors or your masters?

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 05:02 PM

:lol Reading abstracts is too hard for WC.

I seldom bother any more unless you quote a passage for me to find. I think is rather despicable tactic to throw out so much information, especially when often, it doesn't apply.

Give me a quote in the link you want me to see, and I will read it.

MannyIsGod

06-16-2012, 05:04 PM

I say bullshit to this. Please support this contention.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/soden0201.pdf

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 05:04 PM

:lol Reading abstracts is too hard for WC.
:lol Needs a parts manual to have things explained to him
:lol Napkin Logarithmic Forcing Math
:lol Solubility Charts
:lol Arguing for stronger H20 Feedback and not even realizing it.
Any wise person does not believe you allegations unless you are willing to back it up.

Talk is cheap. Prove it.

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 05:05 PM

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/soden0201.pdf
Is it too much to ask for a partial quote?

CosmicCowboy

06-16-2012, 05:05 PM

Manny, I saw this article and thought of you...might interest you...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-graduate-programs-arent-worth-070045929.html

MannyIsGod

06-16-2012, 05:08 PM

I seldom bother any more unless you quote a passage for me to find. I think is rather despicable tactic to throw out so much information, especially when often, it doesn't apply.

Give me a quote in the link you want me to see, and I will read it.

Reading is hard. I don't want to strain you so you don't have to bother.

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 05:10 PM

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/soden0201.pdf

Is it too much to ask for a partial quote?
I did a quick scan, didn't see it support your 1:1 contention. Did I miss it?

Quote please.

I'm not disagreeing with the effect water vapor has. I;'m disagreeing with your claim of 1:1.

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 05:11 PM

Reading is hard. I don't want to strain you so you don't have to bother.
Why are you being so childish? Why can't you show me the quote that supports your 1:1 claim?

MannyIsGod

06-16-2012, 05:14 PM

Because this is more fun and because watching you hang yourself is WAY more fun.

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 05:16 PM

Because this is more fun and because watching you hang yourself is WAY more fun.
Bullshit.

It's because you are lying. the claim is invalid.

You aren't man enough to say you made a mistake.

I read the file again, didn't see it anywhere, besides.... they are talking about modeling vs. observation.

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 05:20 PM

For every degree of Celsius of warming caused by CO2, you can expect another degree to be caused by the water vapor feedback mechanism.
I say bullshit to this. Please support this contention.

Your link only supports what everyone knows about increased humidity. It does not support your 1:1.

MannyIsGod

06-16-2012, 05:20 PM

Maybe if you read it a 3rd time you'll magically understand it. Give it a try.

MannyIsGod

06-16-2012, 05:22 PM

If anything, the 1:1 ratio I posted is conservative.

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 05:22 PM

Maybe if you read it a 3rd time you'll magically understand it. Give it a try.
That's OK.

I understand.

You are too childish to give a strait answer. You must play games.

Let me know when you are willing to show you actually comprehend this stuff. Right now, it looks like you only pretend to.

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 05:24 PM

If anything, the 1:1 ratio I posted is conservative.
If you say so.

MannyIsGod

06-16-2012, 05:24 PM

Don't be sad WC. :( I'm sure some of the other boys and girls want to play with you.

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 05:27 PM

Don't be sad WC. :( I'm sure some of the other boys and girls want to play with you.
Yes, I'm sad. I'm sad that I am wasting my time with your childish attitude.

I'm sad that you don't understand the science enough to show us why I'm wrong, if I am.

I'm sad for you that I believe your money for your education will be wasted. Really now, if you can't explain such simple questions, how will you get a job?

MannyIsGod

06-16-2012, 05:31 PM

Yes, I'm sad. I'm sad that I am wasting my time with your childish attitude.

I'm sad that you don't understand the science enough to show us why I'm wrong, if I am.

I'm sad for you that I believe your money for your education will be wasted. Really now, if you can't explain such simple questions, how will you get a job?

:lol are you going to be interviewing me? If so I'm fucked!

Wild Cobra

06-16-2012, 05:48 PM

Manny...

For a total 2 C increase, H2O would increase by 13.2% average. If CO2 is 1 C of this increase, and H2O is the other 1 C, then H2O would have to be much stronger than the AGW community gives it credit for. It would have to be so much stronger, that CO2 is almost meaningless.

Do the math. See for yourself. Plot a 13.2% increase vs. a 1 C rise on a logarithmic curve. I used Hansen's formula for CO2.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-16-2012, 05:49 PM

I spent off and on for a week trying to get him to understand how to look at functions as phenomenon modeled through time. How to look at them as multiple variables that are mathematically related.

How scientists use these methods to explain phenomenon and you just cannot take the difference of two completely arbitrary points in time and multiply them by a K value off of a chart and think its predictive of anything.

You have seen the derivatives that they model the oceans with.

He is stuck on the level of

x/225 = .776 therefor

x = 174

If you look at his napkin math they all boil down to this type of thing. This is stuff they already expect you to know in remedial math courses in college and that's his limit.

Not being to explain things to someone who is that simple minded is not reflective of anything other than he being dumb as shit.

Hey WC, when you take a partial derivative of x of a function of x and y. You treat the variable y as a constant when you do the differentiation BUT is it still a constant AFTER the operation is done?

FuzzyLumpkins

06-16-2012, 05:51 PM

Wild Cobra

06-17-2012, 12:12 AM

I spent off and on for a week trying to get him to understand how to look at functions as phenomenon modeled through time. How to look at them as multiple variables that are mathematically related.

And what you fail to understnd is that no matter how you look at the other variables, and no matter what you do with the partial derivatives, the variable for the changes in temperature and salinity is a linear multiplier to the rest.

None of the rest matters when you want to see only the changes of temperature.

Wild Cobra

06-17-2012, 12:12 AM

Looks like Manny put up the white flag.

Wild Cobra

06-17-2012, 12:13 AM

Right on cue with the stupid!

DERP!!!!
I'm sorry that you are too stupid to follow what I did. What part do you need me to explain?

Wild Cobra

06-17-2012, 12:23 AM

Is this what you're calling napkin math FuzzNutz?

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Global%20Warming/IPCCformulasedited.jpg

Wild Cobra

06-17-2012, 01:38 AM

I understand why Manny put up the white flag.

Current climate models suggest that this provides
an important positive feedback, roughly doubling
the sensitivity of the surface temperature to an
increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases (3–5).

"Suggest" is such a powerful word. And when coupled with "model," it means so much!

:rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin

Sorry I missed something so meaningful to you Manny. It seems rather insignificant to me. You know my feelings about climate models. They are made to reflect past observations, and never properly predict the future changes.

I think once he realized the forcing math didn't work, he knew he couldn't make something up to convince anyone.

MannyIsGod

06-17-2012, 02:45 AM

:lol @ logarithmic forcing math.

MannyIsGod

06-17-2012, 02:45 AM

FYI, I waved the white flag with you a LONG time ago. I think most have.

Borat Sagyidev

06-17-2012, 02:54 AM

You know my feelings about climate models. They are made to reflect past observations, and never properly predict the future changes.

Yeah, good point. Those past observations are just dead wrong. Besides, the earth is only 4500 years old.

The next step is to find the next hurricane tracking model, few days in advance in landfall and camp out on a beach middle of track just to prove your point.

If you make it ok, it's God's will. If not, he just doesn't like you. It's an unknown, just like a climate model.

Wild Cobra

06-17-2012, 03:28 AM

On a more serious side Manny, do you know what an accepted sensitivity is for forcing to degrees? This is an aspect I haven't seen before as definite, and everything I've seen is contradictory to another.

Is there an accepted value out there?

If I use 3.7 w/m-2 for one degree, that limits the radiative downforcing to about 122 w/m-2. However, other studies have the greenhouse effect to somewhat over 320 w/m-2. This would indicate a sensitivity of around 9.7 per degree.

This is a linear function, isn't it?

Anyway, if I go with the 3.7, the constant in Hansen's formula would be 3.12. TAR has it at 3.35 which isn't a dramatic difference. I forget the changes between TAR and AR4 for CO2 forcing without looking it up, but it does yield 1.61 watts/m-2 vs. the AR4 1.66. To get 1.66, the constant is equal to 3.216. If I plot H2O on a more pure logarithmic curve than for CO2, for 13.2% more water vapor (2C response) to equal another 1 degree, I get constant value of 29.84. If I use the same formula for CO2, the constant value is 10.3. Either way, a doubling is pretty high. 5.4 degrees using Hansen's formula vs. 5.6 degrees for a more pure logarithmic formula.

Care to comment?

FuzzyLumpkins

06-17-2012, 09:35 AM

Quoting someone elses work does not speak to your abilities. The shit you write down as your 'work' is arithmetic and fractions. Its shit kids learn by 7th grade. Even those in the dummie classes.

You do not remotely understand how things interrelate. You clearly do not understand the significance of log functions and 'linearity.' It is pretty apparent that you are just tossing out terminology and have no notion of the point of them being used in a discussion on modeling.

You should really just punch yourself in the face. You really questioned if a log is linear?

That's not even the point of linearity anyway. You are talking about summing exclusive outputs and not superimposing.

Oh and pray do tell how you get a 'more' logarithmic function than hansen's ln(1+ax+by+cz)? That just sounds like stupidspeak for "i aribtrarily just made up even more numbers."

And you still really really suck at thermodynamics.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-17-2012, 09:47 AM

The relationship between the magnitude of the climate forcing and
the magnitude of the climate change response defines the climate
sensitivity. A process that changes the sensitivity of the climate response
is called a feedback mechanism. A feedback is positive if the process
increases the magnitude of the response and negative if the feedback
reduces the magnitude of the response. The concepts behind feedbacks
as applied to climate change are derived from concepts in control theory
that were first developed for electronics. By examining separate
feedback loops, one can gain a sense of the direction of the influence of
the feedback on a change in the state of the system, whether it is
reinforcing or damping, and the relative importance of a given feedback
when compared with other feedbacks. Climate change can therefore be
viewed as the result of adjustment among compensating feedback
processes, each of which behaves in a characteristically nonlinear
fashion. The fact that the climate of the Earth has varied in the past
between rather narrow limits despite large variations in external forcing
is evidence for the efficiency and robustness of these feedbacks.

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/pdf/Ch13_GalleyC.pdf

Agloco

06-17-2012, 10:13 AM

:lol

Yonivore

06-17-2012, 11:16 AM

Models, of any kind, are only as good as their predictive ability.

James Hansen’s climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/)

From their Die kalte Sonne website (http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=4006), Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning put up this guest Post by Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) on Hansen’s 1988 forecast, and show that Hansen was and is, way off the mark. h/t to Pierre Gosselin of No Tricks Zone (http://notrickszone.com/) and WUWT reader tips.

http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/hansen.gif
Figure 1: Temperature forecast Hansen’s group from the year 1988. The various scenarios are 1.5% CO 2 increase (blue), constant increase in CO 2 emissions (green) and stagnant CO 2 emissions (red). In reality, the increase in CO 2 emissions by as much as 2.5%, which would correspond to the scenario above the blue curve. The black curve is the ultimate real-measured temperature (rolling 5-year average). Hansen’s model overestimates the temperature by 1.9 ° C, which is a whopping 150% wrong. Figure supplemented by Hansen et al (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=de&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1988/JD093iD08p09341.shtml&usg=ALkJrhgZbxr4EO3VPiE0TP4jz3rMtOc4Ng). (1988 (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=de&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1988/JD093iD08p09341.shtml&usg=ALkJrhgZbxr4EO3VPiE0TP4jz3rMtOc4Ng)) .

One of the most important publications on the “dangerous anthropogenic climate change” is that of James Hansen and colleagues from the year 1988, in the Journal of Geophysical Research (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=de&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1988/JD093iD08p09341.shtml&usg=ALkJrhgZbxr4EO3VPiE0TP4jz3rMtOc4Ng) published. The title of the work is (in German translation) “Global climate change, according to the prediction of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

In this publication, Hansen and colleagues present the GISS Model II, with which they simulate climate change as a result of concentration changes of atmospheric trace gases and particulate matter (aerosols). The scientists here are three scenarios:

A: increase in CO 2 emissions by 1.5% per year
B: constant increase in CO 2 emissions after 2000
C: No increase in CO 2 emissions after 2000

The CO 2 emissions since 2000 to about 2.5 percent per year has increased, so that we would expect according to the Hansen paper a temperature rise, which should be stronger than in model A. Figure 1 shows the three Hansen scenarios and the real measured global temperature curve are shown. The protruding beyond Scenario A arrow represents the temperature value that the Hansen team would have predicted on the basis of a CO 2 increase of 2.5%. Be increased according to the Hansen’s forecast, the temperature would have compared to the same level in the 1970s by 1.5 ° C. In truth, however, the temperature has increased by only 0.6 ° C.

It is apparent that the next to it by the Hansen group in 1988 modeled temperature prediction by about 150%. It is extremely regrettable that precisely this type of modeling of our politicians is still regarded as a reliable climate prediction.

Yonivore

06-17-2012, 11:58 AM

Seein' as how Manny loves the scientific paper, what say you, Manny? And, have fun!

1000+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html)

Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs,

"You realize that there are something like two or three thousand studies all of which concur which have been peer reviewed, and not one of the studies dissenting has been peer reviewed?"

- John Kerry, U.S. Senator and Failed 2004 U.S. Presidential Candidate

"There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero. The misconception that there is disagreement about the science has been deliberately created by a relatively small number of people."

- Al Gore, Former U.S. Vice President and Failed 2000 U.S. Presidential Candidate

"I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line."

- John H., Comment at RealClimate.org

MannyIsGod

06-17-2012, 01:36 PM

:lmao

I have this mental image of Yonivore getting all excited because he thinks he's found something new every time he posts something new. Reading a thread is hard.

MannyIsGod

06-17-2012, 01:37 PM

SnakeBoy

06-17-2012, 03:20 PM

I can provide the studies to back up these statements if you'd like. I just didn't want to go pull them when I don't have all that much time this morning unless you were actually wanting them. (or anyone else, for that matter)

No I don't need them. I've never doubted we were increasing CO2, it's seems pretty obvious without scientific study. I don't think I fully accept your 100% number because it's so absolute but it's not something I would debate either.

If you come across studies concerning the amount of co2 increase from fossil fuels vs deforestation I would be interested in reading those. I read general articles putting deforestation as be responsible for anywhere from 20% to around half of the CO2 increase but I haven't seen the actual studies on that topic.

Also if you want to talk about how the measured co2 increase relates to the measured temp increase. In other words how much of the measured temp increase can be directly tied to the measured temp increase (and how do you know). Minus the math debate, it's been over 20 years since I took math and physics courses.

Wild Cobra

06-17-2012, 03:38 PM

:lmao Logarithmic forcing math

OK, what do you call it?

Why is it that you only laugh instead of bringing anything pertinent to the discussion?

FuzzyLumpkins

06-17-2012, 04:20 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

06-17-2012, 04:36 PM

OK, what do you call it?

Why is it that you only laugh instead of bringing anything pertinent to the discussion?

Irony thy name is WidlDumbass.

At this point we have been trying to get you to understand the pertinent points for years.

I would call it a system whose response is a ln function. But again you are failing to see how things interconnect. That response doesn't just happen and then the world stops. there are simultaneous systems at work.

Its just like you talking about nonconservative systems and and drawing conclusions about scalar values at the endpoints. Time is continuous and all types of things happen between two arbitrary times. Things you do not even begin to try to account for.

Most natural systems are grossly nonlinear and their functions cannot be forced into superspostition such that the eigenfuynctions can be teased out using 'easy' tricks.' Thats why supercomputers are used because you have to sample point in time by point in time and slug out all the operations.

This is not a car where the gear ratios are deliberately chosen to yield nice linear combinations. Or a homogenous abiotic can of soda fizzing out on an open ended interval. Natural systems are not applications of specific engineering principles. Even then you do not grasp how things work on a broader scale.

Agloco

06-17-2012, 07:29 PM

Why is it that you only laugh instead of bringing anything pertinent to the discussion?

While I wouldn't presume to speak on Manny's behalf, I refuse to add to the cesspool that this thread has become. It's my belief that you don't buy half of the junk that you spew. Rather, you just crave the attention.

Were mommy and daddy that unkind to you?

MannyIsGod

06-17-2012, 09:41 PM

No I don't need them. I've never doubted we were increasing CO2, it's seems pretty obvious without scientific study. I don't think I fully accept your 100% number because it's so absolute but it's not something I would debate either.

There is more than likely an increase that would have occurred regardless of human emissions at this point. That being said, in the past 100 years you likely would have seen no more than 10 ppm (and i'm being pretty generous here). Thats pretty much all academic, though.

For the purposes of any general conversation I'm extremely confident saying the virtual entirety of the increase is caused by anthropogenic causes.

If you come across studies concerning the amount of co2 increase from fossil fuels vs deforestation I would be interested in reading those. I read general articles putting deforestation as be responsible for anywhere from 20% to around half of the CO2 increase but I haven't seen the actual studies on that topic.

I don't know any of the top of my head but I'll look for some. Over the years I've read estimates as high as 20% but I don't think I've seen any higher than that. (even 20% strikes me as extremely high)

Also if you want to talk about how the measured co2 increase relates to the measured temp increase. In other words how much of the measured temp increase can be directly tied to the measured temp increase (and how do you know). Minus the math debate, it's been over 20 years since I took math and physics courses.

The best estimates now are a fairly wide range from 1.5 degrees C to 4 degrees C or so because of the uncertainty of feedbacks - especially clouds.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-spm-2.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-spm-2-l.png

Thats probably the most famous figure that shows you the given forcing amounts. You can see the error bars and many things are fairly small - especially the GHG. Thats because we can take direct measurements of just how much energy these gases are reemitting. But the biggest problems come in with things like clouds and aresols.

Clouds are the biggest uncertainty. We simply don't have the computer power to replicate process that occur in cloud formation so we have to parameterize clouds. IOW, when a parcel of air at a certain temp has a certain level of humidity clouds form or they don't etc etc.

Until we're able to get a better handle on that, the range is going to continue to be fairly wide, IMO.

Wild Cobra

06-18-2012, 02:08 AM

I refuse to add to the cesspool that this thread has become.
Then why are you flicking the shit that follows?

It's my belief that you don't buy half of the junk that you spew. Rather, you just crave the attention.

How little you know.

Were mommy and daddy that unkind to you?

Not that it's any of your business, but they were good to me. Coming her just because you're on the rag and feel the need to pick on me as others do shows very poor class on your part, especially since you aren't engaging in the topic at all.

Were mommy and daddy that unkind to you, that you have to be unkind to others?

boutons_deux

06-18-2012, 05:28 AM

Death Spiral Watch: Arctic Sea Ice Takes A Nosedive

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/CT.gif

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/17/501030/death-spiral-watch-arctic-sea-ice-takes-a-nosedive/

Agloco

06-18-2012, 08:50 AM

Then why are you flicking the shit that follows?

How little you know.

Not that it's any of your business, but they were good to me. Coming her just because you're on the rag and feel the need to pick on me as others do shows very poor class on your part, especially since you aren't engaging in the topic at all.

Were mommy and daddy that unkind to you, that you have to be unkind to others?

Are you denying that your display in this thread is nothing more than histrionics at this point?

As for my being rude and not contributing to this thread, well you've set the bar awfully low. Don't complain when people settle for clearing such a low standard.

You're engaged in attention seeking at this point, nothing more.

Poptech

06-18-2012, 09:58 AM

We finally got Poptech to go away. Do not evoke him please.
Pothead, I simply got bored constantly embarrassing you over and over. Your blackmail has failed and I have been working on many new Truth articles,

The Truth about Judith Curry (http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/05/truth-about-judith-curry.html)

Judith Curry is not a skeptic but a hurricane alarmist who had an alleged epiphany after Climategate and now seeks to be some sort of arbiter of scientific integrity. Her history of trust building includes accusing world leading hurricane expert, Dr. William Gray of "brain fossilization" and that, "Nobody except a few groupies wants to hear what he has to say" for his objections to her alarmist position on hurricanes. Curry has derided skeptics as "deniers" in both a testimony to congress and in the peer-reviewed literature, apparently in attempts at building "trust". Not even the most moderate of skeptics, Bjorn Lomborg was safe, "he fails to appreciate the risks that global warming bring to us all". Regarding the corruption exposed by Climategate she incomprehensibly believes, "I don't think anybody’s come at this with bad motives". She even defended Michael Mann by claiming that Steve McIntyre only found, "relatively minor errors" in Mann's Hockey Stick papers. But when it comes to the alarmist English major Chris Mooney, author of such "amicable" titles as the "The Republican War on Science", she gave him a five star review on Amazon for "Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming" calling it, "Science writing at its best".

The Truth about Richard Muller (http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html)

Richard Muller has never been a skeptic, at best he had a moment of intellectual honesty towards skeptics when he acknowledged Steve McIntyre's debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick, only to later dismiss this as irrelevant to the global warming debate, "This result should not affect any of our thinking on global warming". Hardly surprising, as Muller considers the carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels to be, "the greatest pollutant in human history" and likely to have, "severe and detrimental effects on global climate". The future outlook for global warming according to Muller is that, "it’s going to get much, much worse" and thus advocates that the United States immediately pay China and India hundreds of billions of dollars to cut back their carbon emissions or, "it'll be too late". No wonder he endorsed "The Earth is the Great Ship Titanic", Steven Chu as "perfect" for U.S. Energy Secretary and Al Gore's hypocritical alarmism,

"If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants."
- Richard Muller, 2008

Your failures are building at a rapid pace.

Yonivore

06-18-2012, 11:28 AM

:lmao

I have this mental image of Yonivore getting all excited because he thinks he's found something new every time he posts something new. Reading a thread is hard.
The link on Hansen was posted on Friday, the link on the 1000+ scientific papers on May 17. Were either of them discussed, in this thread, before I posted them?

And, I didn't get "all excited;" the information was new to me and I was curious of your response.

I realize the idea that skeptics criticize current climate models, based on the failure of previous efforts, isn't new but, the German website raises it again and, in a way that I think calls on current AGCC proponents to demonstrate how current methodologies are different and more effective.

I posted the link from PopularTechnology.net because, I wasn't aware such a repository existed and -- wasn't sure you were either. The post on the 1000+ papers was put up in May; has it been discussed in here since then? I don't recall having seen it.

You're still having fun, right?

boutons_deux

06-18-2012, 12:24 PM

you people suckered into "arguing", actually pissing matches, against WC and PussyEater should admit it's not, in any way, about the climate science.

It's intentionally blind and willfully ignorant, right-wing/UCA ideology to deny science in order to protect their wealth and power.

Wild Cobra

06-18-2012, 03:33 PM

Are you denying that your display in this thread is nothing more than histrionics at this point?

As for my being rude and not contributing to this thread, well you've set the bar awfully low. Don't complain when people settle for clearing such a low standard.

You're engaged in attention seeking at this point, nothing more.
How can you be so wrong?

I respond to attacks and you call it attention getting?

My problem is having a hard time not to respond to the childish personal attacks from people like you, and i should completely ignore thy cyber bullies like FuzzNutz.

As for what I say on the topic, i believe what I say.

Why are you deflecting this thread instead of adding something of value?

Poptech

06-18-2012, 04:02 PM

The link on Hansen was posted on Friday, the link on the 1000+ scientific papers on May 17. Were either of them discussed, in this thread, before I posted them?

And, I didn't get "all excited;" the information was new to me and I was curious of your response.

I realize the idea that skeptics criticize current climate models, based on the failure of previous efforts, isn't new but, the German website raises it again and, in a way that I think calls on current AGCC proponents to demonstrate how current methodologies are different and more effective.

I posted the link from PopularTechnology.net because, I wasn't aware such a repository existed and -- wasn't sure you were either. The post on the 1000+ papers was put up in May; has it been discussed in here since then? I don't recall having seen it.
An older version of the list was posted here where you where not actively commenting, the most recent version has not been discussed.

Wild Cobra

06-18-2012, 04:09 PM

Are you denying that your display in this thread is nothing more than histrionics at this point?

As for my being rude and not contributing to this thread, well you've set the bar awfully low. Don't complain when people settle for clearing such a low standard.

You're engaged in attention seeking at this point, nothing more.
To add, I have admitted I get some terminology wrong sometimes. An example, I believe I said "the added humidity" when discussing the H2O feedback with Manny. Thing is, the 13.2% is how much more water the air holds at the same humidity with the 2C increase. I don't always correct myself on these mistakes, until others point them out, and when they don't, I figure they didn't notice and it doesn't matter.

What mistakes have I made that warrant your attack?

Notice how nobody yet has shown any solid evidence H2O causes that much feedback? The heating curve is pretty large if his contention is the, and makes a bigger case for the skeptics.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-18-2012, 05:00 PM

Pothead, I simply got bored constantly embarrassing you over and over. Your blackmail has failed and I have been working on many new Truth articles,

The Truth about Judith Curry (http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/05/truth-about-judith-curry.html)

The Truth about Richard Muller (http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html)

Your failures are building at a rapid pace.

:lol you sure showed me, aspie.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-18-2012, 05:34 PM

My problem is having a hard time not to respond to the childish personal attacks from people like you, and i should completely ignore thy cyber bullies like FuzzNutz.

http://www.wcg.org/lit/booklets/risen/Crucified%20man%20found%20in%201968.jpg

Yonivore

06-18-2012, 06:04 PM

An older version of the list was posted here where you where not actively commenting, the most recent version has not been discussed.
Ah, well, I think the issues with models and their predictive ability being directly proportional to the complexity of the variables inputted is something the climate gang can't seem to overcome. Hansen being so demonstrably wrong in 1988 has relevance in 2012. What was the response?

And, if I'm not mistaken, at the PopularTechnology.org website, they've added a whole category where criticisms can be addressed and/or refuted. I don't know how new that is but, while the list may have existed in another form, this site specifically addresses the nonsense that passes for debate in this forum.

Perhaps even Manny would learn something about the debate over AGCC.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-18-2012, 06:42 PM

Lets use mistakes from 24 years ago to characterize the science of today.....

We also should not have bothered with HTTP, rDNA, nanotech, brain actuated prosthetics, or anything else for that matter.

Systems analysis and computational power compared to 24 years ago is an exponential increase in the order of at least 5 and with P2P notions its that much more.

In the 1970s was when oceanic and atmospheric modelling began in earnest using engineering principles. The issues arise in respect to the dynamics of the systems of variable and not to do with the variables themselves.

The systems are nonlinear and nonperiodic and as such the solutions to simultaneous phenomenon are not 'easy.' The Lorentz Attractor, nondeterminstic flow, chaos theory and the like became big talking points in the scientific community in the 1990s because of these difficulties.

In essence what you are doing is the same as taking the state of manmade flight from about the mid 1800s when scientists were beginning to understand dynamics and claiming that a failed flight test in 1880 shows that the science is a failure.

Reading what you say it is very indicative that you are regurgitating dumbed down explanations of what the scientists are attempting to do and then ridiculing it. I do not deign to know the specific state of climate science as I am not working in one of the plethora of Universities and Institutes working on the problem but I do know better than to characterize the state of the science in 2012 on the basis of the science in 1988.

it's asinine.

Poptech

06-18-2012, 07:00 PM

And, if I'm not mistaken, at the PopularTechnology.org website, they've added a whole category where criticisms can be addressed and/or refuted. I don't know how new that is but, while the list may have existed in another form, this site specifically addresses the nonsense that passes for debate in this forum.
The major changes besides more papers since 900+ was published is that the table of contents was added, the entire list was organized chronologically by category (some categories are new like the Highlights section), dozens of editors were directly contact to further confirm peer-review status of their journals and the entire list was link checked correcting over 100 broken links.

Rebuttals have been on there for sometime (December 2009) but critics never could find them (or intentionally did not) so the table of contents has appeared to correct this problem.

You are correct though that the 1000+ version has not been discussed here. I completely agree that it addresses much of that nonsense, especially relating to skeptics making valid scientific arguments against alarmist claims.

Poptech

06-18-2012, 07:02 PM

:lol you sure showed me, poptech.
There is much more to come Pothead. The great offense you have taken towards the Truth articles further inspired me to keep up the great work.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-18-2012, 07:14 PM

There is much more to come Pothead. The great offense you have taken towards the Truth articles further inspired me to keep up the great work.

I must say its interesting watching people completely oblivious of social conventions go whether or not it is intentionally obtuse.

BTW I sent Judith and Richard a copy of the email.

As for inspired, I didn't read the links because I am not going to your site but if it doesn't have communist flags, bookies, terrorists and El Salvadoran communist ties then your shit is weak.

:lol

MannyIsGod

06-18-2012, 07:22 PM

Don't have time to address the Hansen thing fully other than to quickly point out that the article Yonivore linked is full of some quite horrendous data or out right lies. I'll explain why later.

Poptech

06-18-2012, 07:28 PM

BTW I sent Judith and Richard a copy of the email.
:rollin :lmao :rollin :lmao

As for inspired, I didn't read the links...
You don't want to learn the truth? :nope

Yonivore

06-18-2012, 09:20 PM

Don't have time to address the Hansen thing fully other than to quickly point out that the article Yonivore linked is full of some quite horrendous data or out right lies. I'll explain why later.
When you do, could you also explain how an error bar that spans 112.5% of a whole is considered "fairly small."

Take your time, you're a busy man -- having fun, I hope.

Borat Sagyidev

06-18-2012, 10:01 PM

As for what I say on the topic, i believe what I say.

You're a loser and a moron.

Borat Sagyidev

06-18-2012, 10:03 PM

When you do, could you also explain how an error bar that spans 112.5% of a whole is considered "fairly small."

Take your time, you're a busy man -- having fun, I hope.

"of a whole"

Doesn't matter what he says. It'll be a waste of time. You can't fix stupid.

Yonivore

06-18-2012, 10:09 PM

"of a whole"

Doesn't matter what he says. It'll be a waste of time. You can't fix stupid.

If you measure something at 1.6 units with an error bar that spans 1.8 units, I'm not sure calling the error bar "fairly small" is an accurate statement.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-18-2012, 10:51 PM

If you measure something at 1.6 units with an error bar that spans 1.8 units, I'm not sure calling the error bar "fairly small" is an accurate statement.

Incorrect. That completely depends on what the units represent and the scale of said units.

Easy example is celsius around freezing. If the reading is 1.6 degrees with a 2 degree margin of error then that is clearly a small margin of error. Additionally, said degree of error gives you a range of possibilities to apply risk management to.

One thing that is clear is that you have no conception of risk management or statisitics. That is expected as law enforcement does not require that you know it.

Yonivore

06-18-2012, 11:14 PM

Incorrect. That completely depends on what the units represent and the scale of said units.

Easy example is celsius around freezing. If the reading is 1.6 degrees with a 2 degree margin of error then that is clearly a small margin of error. Additionally, said degree of error gives you a range of possibilities to apply risk management to.

One thing that is clear is that you have no conception of risk management or statisitics. That is expected as law enforcement does not require that you know it.
If the baseline is 0 (as it seems to be in Manny's chart) and you measure something at 1.6 units with an error bar that spans 1.8 units, that's not a "fairly small" margin, relative to the measurement.

SnakeBoy

06-18-2012, 11:16 PM

I don't know any of the top of my head but I'll look for some. Over the years I've read estimates as high as 20% but I don't think I've seen any higher than that. (even 20% strikes me as extremely high)

I think it will prove to be much higher. The fao used to use 20-25% as the figure. Then there was a study that lowered it to around 15%. Those numbers only account for co2 released through deforestation not co2 increase due to loss of a carbon sink.

I found this article which would indicate the amount of co2 increase due to deforestation is probably higher than you think.

They discovered that the world’s forests currently remove 2.4 billion metric tons of carbon each year from the Earth’s atmosphere, which they believe to be equivalent to one-third of the planet’s annual fossil fuel emissions. They also discovered that deforestation for development, to generate fuel, or for other reasons emits roughly 2.9 billion metric tons of the greenhouse gas, or "more than a quarter of all emissions stemming from human activity" each year, according to AFP writer Marlowe Hood.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2080176/study_touts_carbonabsorbing_power_of_forests/

FuzzyLumpkins

06-19-2012, 12:10 AM

If the baseline is 0 (as it seems to be in Manny's chart) and you measure something at 1.6 units with an error bar that spans 1.8 units, that's not a "fairly small" margin, relative to the measurement.

All you did was repeat yourself. As I said it depends on the unit and the base. i just gave you one example of a baseline of zero that obviously was a small margin of error.

If you want to make a compelling argument then you are going to have to be more specific and detailed such as discussing the range, units of measurement etc.

In this particular case, your interpretation of the stats is very flawed.

a) the estimate given was 1.6 with a range of .8 to 2.4. Thats a margin of about +/- .7 not 1.6.

b) that figure was extrapolated from multiple sources each with it own degree of error. Soot has a margin of error as does CO2 etc. Each one compounds the error in the end calculations and has to be calculated in the final tally. Its similar to the notion of what the probability of winning the lottery is when you add ping pong balls.

c) Nothing in this life is certain. There is a degree of uncertainty in everything even the most exact of sciences.

Wild Cobra

06-19-2012, 02:32 AM

If you measure something at 1.6 units with an error bar that spans 1.8 units, I'm not sure calling the error bar "fairly small" is an accurate statement.
LOL...

FuzzyDumbDumb doesn't get it.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-spm-2-l.png

You are talking about that, right?

A total charted net anthropogenic radiative forcing given as 1.6 with a range of 0.6 to 2.4....

I guess in fuzzy math, 2.4 - 0.6 ≠ 1.8.

Looks like a span of 1.8 to me, but what do I know. Fuzzy disagrees, so we must be wrong.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-19-2012, 04:57 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance

Yup you still suck at statistics. If you need me to bold the salient point for you just let me know.

Wild Cobra

06-19-2012, 05:36 AM

Will someone please define what "span" means to FuzzNutz. He won't listen to me.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-19-2012, 05:49 AM

Wild Cobra

06-19-2012, 06:12 AM

Wow...

The idiot does know what span means. I'll bet he googled hard for it. Considering he said Yoni was wrong about the "span" of the range, I wonder whats moving through that pea sized brain to justify his cyber bullying now. Maybe worms?

FuzzyLumpkins

06-19-2012, 06:33 AM

There was a span from 2000 to 2010. Was there also a span from 2005 to 2010?

Span is arbitrary. I made the assumption that you were talking about span from the expected value to the outer limit. Instead you were talking about the span from one outer limit to the other.

I made that assumption because when you are talking about error you talk about the deviation from the expected value. You are just talking in a way that makes the error look larger than how error is viewed in science and statistics.

I also noted that you guys completely avoided the discussion of compounding probabilities. All you guys are doing is handwaving at the largest error value which happens to be a sum of all the other constituent errors. You conveniently ignore that the degree of error as to the anthropogenic contribution from GHG is relatively much, much smaller.

The highest level of uncertainty has to do with the mitigating effects of albedo so in essence what you are doing is betting that the effects of aerosols is going to be much greater towards mitigating the much more certain contributing effects of GHG emissions.

That's called confirmation bias.

Wild Cobra

06-19-2012, 07:28 AM

Maybe if you tried to have an actual discussion with people instead of always trying to find or fabricate fault in others, you wouldn't look so stupid.

Yonivore

06-19-2012, 07:41 AM

When determining error you evaluate from the expected value. Span is an arbitrary term indicating some length between two points. The span from the expected value to the limit of error is a span.

It's not my fault that you guys have no clue on the subjects you are talking about.
Actually, the span about which I'm talking is from the minimum of the error bar to the maximum (not from the expected value to one or the other extreme) and, it really doesn't matter if it's a cumulative, or the product of, other bars; if you tell me there are 16 anythings in a box but, due to confidence issues, it could be as few as 6 and as many as 24, that's not a "fairly small" error bar, is it?

MannyIsGod

06-19-2012, 09:01 AM

boutons_deux

06-19-2012, 09:03 AM

Forbes Still Publishing Heartland’s Climate Nonsense

A recent Forbes column alleges that federal scientists are "doctoring" temperature data to fabricate a warming trend, after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that the last 12-month period was the warmest on record for the continental U.S.

But what the column paints as a nefarious conspiracy is actually just proper science -- NOAA painstakingly applies peer-reviewed adjustments to account for errors and gaps in the raw data from thousands of temperature stations across the country. The resulting temperature record has been independently evaluated and corroborated.

The column is by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute, the libertarian group that recently made headlines with a short-lived billboard campaign tastelessly invoking the Unabomber. This is not the first time Taylor has used his platform at Forbes to malign scientists and spread bad information about climate research.

At issue are the corrections NOAA uses to eliminate errors and known sources of bias from the raw weather station data (which Taylor likes to call "the real-world data"). Keep in mind that the U.S. represents just 2% of the Earth's surface so the data we're talking about are a small part of the evidence of global climate change.

The scientists (Taylor calls them "bureaucrats") know that the raw data have flaws -- stations are moved, natural disasters knock stations offline, measuring instruments change -- so NOAA performs quality control using methods that are published in peer-reviewed papers. Taylor concedes that "it is, of course, possible that certain factors can influence the real-world temperature readings such that a correction in real-world temperature data may be justified." But when he doesn't like the results, he concludes that the adjustments aren't valid corrections but "doctored data."

Against NOAA's rigorous science, Taylor offers his "common sense," which tells him that any corrections should, in fact, reduce warming:

Common sense indicates that if the real-world data need adjustment, the proper adjustment is to further reduce recent temperature readings. Yet the bureaucrats who oversee the data have instead doctored the data to show a false, long-term warming pattern.

How does Taylor, a lawyer, know what "the proper adjustment" is? He simply asserts that if there are factors biasing the data, "The most important such influence is the growth of towns and cities around temperature stations." The urbanization would cause the raw data to show more warming than actually occurred and the adjustment should decrease that warming, according to Taylor. But a quick search on NOAA's website shows Taylor is wrong. The most important bias is not urbanization, as Taylor assumed, but a change in observation times. NOAA explains:

The most important bias in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon, when it is warm, to morning, when it is cooler. This shift has resulted in a well documented increasing cool bias over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.

It may not be common sense, but if common sense were good enough, we wouldn't need science.

NOAA's David Easterling also said via email that "Urban warming is a very small part of the overall warming, which also has been documented in the peer reviewed literature." Easterling added, "The conclusions of the column sound like pure speculation on the part of the writer."

Still suspect a giant conspiracy or massive incompetence at NOAA? Take it from physicist Richard Muller, who led an independent assessment of the surface temperature record last year. The study was partly funded by the Koch family, the oil tycoons who, incidentally, have also supported the Heartland Institute. Muller said via email that "it would be ridiculous" not to adjust the raw data. While noting that "some of the adjustments were made by humans using criteria that are somewhat subjective," Muller said his own study produced "results that are very similar to those of the NOAA and NASA groups," which indicates that the corrections are "done in an unbiased way."

Muller's research also showed the effect of urban heat on the data "is minuscule because the urban heat islands are very small in area, and they contribute little to the overall land average."

As outlined by a comprehensive report commissioned by the George W. Bush administration, climate change in the United States shows up in several other observations aside from the temperature data:

Climate-related changes are already observed in the United States and its coastal waters. These include increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. These changes are projected to grow.

If we're in a "long-term cooling trend" as Taylor claims, he's got a lot to explain, and flimsy charges of "doctored data" aren't going to cut it.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206180001

If it's Kock Bros paying, you know their funded orgs are lying.

MannyIsGod

06-19-2012, 09:25 AM

When you do, could you also explain how an error bar that spans 112.5% of a whole is considered "fairly small."

Take your time, you're a busy man -- having fun, I hope.

If you measure something at 1.6 units with an error bar that spans 1.8 units, I'm not sure calling the error bar "fairly small" is an accurate statement.

If the baseline is 0 (as it seems to be in Manny's chart) and you measure something at 1.6 units with an error bar that spans 1.8 units, that's not a "fairly small" margin, relative to the measurement.

Actually, the span about which I'm talking is from the minimum of the error bar to the maximum (not from the expected value to one or the other extreme) and, it really doesn't matter if it's a cumulative, or the product of, other bars; if you tell me there are 16 anythings in a box but, due to confidence issues, it could be as few as 6 and as many as 24, that's not a "fairly small" error bar, is it?

There is more than likely an increase that would have occurred regardless of human emissions at this point. That being said, in the past 100 years you likely would have seen no more than 10 ppm (and i'm being pretty generous here). Thats pretty much all academic, though.

For the purposes of any general conversation I'm extremely confident saying the virtual entirety of the increase is caused by anthropogenic causes.

I don't know any of the top of my head but I'll look for some. Over the years I've read estimates as high as 20% but I don't think I've seen any higher than that. (even 20% strikes me as extremely high)

The best estimates now are a fairly wide range from 1.5 degrees C to 4 degrees C or so because of the uncertainty of feedbacks - especially clouds.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-spm-2.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-spm-2-l.png

Thats probably the most famous figure that shows you the given forcing amounts. You can see the error bars and many things are fairly small - especially the GHG. Thats because we can take direct measurements of just how much energy these gases are reemitting. But the biggest problems come in with things like clouds and aresols.

Clouds are the biggest uncertainty. We simply don't have the computer power to replicate process that occur in cloud formation so we have to parameterize clouds. IOW, when a parcel of air at a certain temp has a certain level of humidity clouds form or they don't etc etc.

Until we're able to get a better handle on that, the range is going to continue to be fairly wide, IMO.

There's some serious failure here on many aspects. First of all, I never claimed the cumulative error was "fairly small". I claimed that many of the error bars - most in fact - are small. If you look at the GHG forcing there is little doubt as to how much is being caused.

I explained that current clouds are the biggest unknown in the system, so its pretty easy for most people to understand that when you add in a variable that is not understood perfectly you're going to be introducing a larger error which is why the cumulative forcing (which includes clouds) shows a larger error bar than almost everything outside of clouds themselves.

There are some seriously poor understandings of statistics on display here. Each possible value within those error bars is not created equal. You should expect about 70% of the possible values to be VERY close to the center of those error bars. As you get further away from the center value, the chance of a value within those error bars being correct drops off quite a large amount. Scientists include the fringe values because even though they have a much lower chance of being correct, they hold a very high standard for accuracy.

Furtheremore, those forcings are not created equal! Some are continental or local which others are global. So, in areas which high levels of pollution (ie China) you're going to see higher levels of aeresols and in turn they are going to have a higher net affect. If you took measurements in China, you would get a lower level of net energy change due to AGW because of this. However that does not mean that is the case around the entire globe. However, this regional difference factors into the error bars as well because its an actual data point in the data used to calculate global forcing.

The error bars for the GHG are the most important things on that chart as well. Why? Because those values are not for a point in the future when CO2 is much higher. They are for the date of the IPCC publication when CO2 still hast not reached levels that have caused a great deal of warming. As time moves on and CO2 concentrations increase, the forcing from them obviously increases as well. As that forcing increases, the total forcing also increases. Even if the error bars for stay the same (and this is what Fuzzy tried to explain to you) when you shift that total forcing to higher levels you're looking at an energy level that provides you with a lot of heating at the low end of the error to an energy level that provides you with even more heating.

Failure to understand basic stats often leads to misunderstandings like this.

MannyIsGod

06-19-2012, 09:28 AM

The IPCC caption from that figure:

Figure SPM.2. Global average radiative forcing (RF) estimates and ranges in 2005 for anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and other important agents and mechanisms, together with the typical geographical extent (spatial scale) of the forcing and the assessed level of scientific understanding (LOSU). The net anthropogenic radiative forcing and its range are also shown. These require summing asymmetric uncertainty estimates from the component terms, and cannot be obtained by simple addition. Additional forcing factors not included here are considered to have a very low LOSU. Volcanic aerosols contribute an additional natural forcing but are not included in this figure due to their episodic nature. The range for linear contrails does not include other possible effects of aviation on cloudiness. {2.9, Figure 2.20}

MannyIsGod

06-19-2012, 09:31 AM

Some understanding on distributions - including error distributions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68-95-99.7_rule

Yonivore

06-19-2012, 09:35 AM

When I first looked at that Hansen critique I knew the temp line was off because it was highest at 1998. That is not the case in any of the 4 temperature datasets out there. I didn't realize there were more errors than that right off the bat but Darrin and Poptech's favorite site put up a post on the subject.

http://skepticalscience.com/simply-wrong-solheim-hansen-88.html

The most important parts:

- The link Yoni posted compares the temp to Hansen's hottest scenario, A. The scenarios are governed by emissions levels and the real world emissions are much closer to Hansen's B or C scenarios which are both noticeably cooler due to a lower amount of GHGes emitted into the atmosphere. Why would you compare against the hottest projection when emissions do not match it?

-When you compare the temperature datasets with scenario C, they are right in line. They are below what scenario B calls for, but by about 40%. This is actually in line with what modern literature believes the CO2 forcing is. In 1988 Hansen believed it was larger than what we believe it to be today.

How many of you have a computer in 1988? Thats about Apple IIe time. Now, imagine comparing that type of computing power to what we have today. Climate modeling was obviously not nearly as strong 25 years ago as it is today. That being said, given what we know about CO2 today, Hansen's model is still pretty damn good.

If the science is so god damn bad, why do "skeptics" need to outright lie when talking about its performance?
Thanks for posting the "most important parts;" hopefully, that'll keep you from moving the argument when I say, despite the bunch of words you just posted, Hansen still overestimated the temperatures in 1988...in all three scenarios (none of which were hidden from the forum and appear in the graph I posted with the article).

Rarely, if ever, do AGCC proponents underestimate. It's all about the sensationalism. Polar bears, glaciers, the snows of Kilimanjaro, etc... But that's a whole other topic. Scenario A was the one latched onto by alarmists and used to try and beat the world into the environmental religion of AGCC.

By the way, in 1969, the Apollo 13 astronauts maintained a trajectory -- that brought them back to Earth -- using a slide rule. That's 19 years before Hansen botched the math on climate and started this climate hysteria nonsense we're having to deal with today.

Yonivore

06-19-2012, 09:37 AM

The IPCC caption from that figure:
All that to say, "It's Kentucky Windage."

Yonivore

06-19-2012, 09:41 AM

Some understanding on distributions - including error distributions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68-95-99.7_rule
A couple of observations.

1) If you understood the issue, you would be able to explain it without linking, and

3) Anytime you tell me there are 16 somethings in a box but, it could be as low as 6 or as many as 24, that's not a "fairly small" error range.

Just sayin'

Yonivore

06-19-2012, 09:43 AM

Failure to understand basic stats often leads to misunderstandings like this.
A basic misapplication of stats can lead to models that don't tell you anything of value.

Yonivore

06-19-2012, 09:58 AM

From the caption (bolded and underlined, just like Manny did because, that makes me smarter):

The net anthropogenic radiative forcing and its range are also shown. These require summing asymmetric uncertainty estimates from the component terms, and cannot be obtained by simple addition.
Aren't "summing" and "addition" the same thing?

Poptech

06-19-2012, 12:00 PM

When I first looked at that Hansen critique I knew the temp line was off because it was highest at 1998. That is not the case in any of the 4 temperature datasets out there. I didn't realize there were more errors than that right off the bat but Darrin and Poptech's favorite site put up a post on the subject.

http://skepticalscience.com/simply-wrong-solheim-hansen-88.html
Back to the cartoonist's site? :lmao

The Truth about Skeptical Science (http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html)

The most important parts:

- The link Yoni posted compares the temp to Hansen's hottest scenario, A. The scenarios are governed by emissions levels and the real world emissions are much closer to Hansen's B or C scenarios which are both noticeably cooler due to a lower amount of GHGes emitted into the atmosphere. Why would you compare against the hottest projection when emissions do not match it?
Real world emissions are not close to C, especially for CO2 (allegedly the most dangerous GHG) which is closest to B.

-When you compare the temperature datasets with scenario C, they are right in line. They are below what scenario B calls for, but by about 40%. This is actually in line with what modern literature believes the CO2 forcing is. In 1988 Hansen believed it was larger than what we believe it to be today.
SS changed the temperature dataset to make it look less bad and they still show Hansen was wrong. His scenario C is worthless and Dr. Michaels was right not to include it as it's emission scenario has nothing to do with reality. Hansen was wrong and continues to be wrong today. Warmist in chief Hansen should never of been listened to in 1988 and should not be listened to today as his predictions are worthless.

Yonivore

06-19-2012, 12:21 PM

Back to the cartoonist's site? :lmao

The Truth about Skeptical Science (http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html)
That's fucking hilarious! :lmao

Yonivore

06-19-2012, 01:16 PM

OMFG! Please, make it stop!

Scared grasshoppers change soil chemistry (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/06/15/3526021.htm)

The title of the article should read, "Scared Grasshoppers Cause Global Warming" but, I'm sure they wanted people to read it before laughing...

Key excerpts:

They placed cages in areas of natural vegetation and allowed some grasshoppers to be alone while others were placed in cages with a spider.

They glued the mouths of the spiders shut in order to make sure that the grasshoppers experienced pure fear, but were not actually killed by the predators.

Previous research has shown that grasshoppers, which normally consume nitrogen-rich grass, move to a diet of carbohydrate-rich grass to cope with stress.
Because grasshoppers naturally co-exist with spiders with their mouths glued shut. Here's a little mind experiment: How many grasshoppers survive an encounter with a spider (with its mouth glued shut) long enough to change their diet to the extent is alters their body chemistry enough to change the out-gassing of their buried, decomposing bodies?

Oh, and I wasn't aware spiders engage in ceremonial death rituals like burying their prey.

Then they make the global warming connection!

"It only takes a slight change in the chemical composition of that animal biomass to fundamentally alter how much carbon dioxide the microbial pool is releasing to the atmosphere while it is decomposing plant organic matter," says co-author Professor Oswald Schmitz, of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.

"This shows that animals could potentially have huge effects on the global carbon balance because they're changing the way microbes respire organic matter."

"What it means is that we're not paying enough attention to the control that animals have over what we view as a classically important process in ecosystem functioning."
I know, I know, I should be using this to counter Manny's insistence humans are responsible for 100% of the increase in CO2 since the dawn of the industrial age -- particularly since it raises yet another variable that will need to be factored into the climate model -- but, seriously, SCARED GRASSHOPPERS?

:lmao

First we're told Dinosaurs farts (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2140323/Dinosaurs-produced-flatulence-force-climate-change.html) cause killer Poison Ivy (http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060529/full/news060529-3.html) and, now, this. Jeeze...is there anything that doesn't cause global climate change (which begs the question, How the fuck do you model EVERYTHING) and is there any calamity that won't befall us in the aftermath?

:lmao

Th'Pusher

06-19-2012, 01:54 PM

Yoni, here is one you'll like as it addresses the issues of modeling you are now harping on:

http://www.masterresource.org/2012/03/what-the-skeptics-are-skeptical-of/

Yonivore

06-19-2012, 02:03 PM

Yoni, here is one you'll like as it addresses the issues of modeling you are now harping on:

http://www.masterresource.org/2012/03/what-the-skeptics-are-skeptical-of/
From the link:

"...the present ability of scientists to understand, model, and predict the climate is far, far lower than we are led to believe.

"To say that modeling the climate for long-term predictions is difficult given the current state of climate science is like saying that it would be difficult for your five-year-old son to build a 400 horsepower car from re-purposed Toys ‘R’ Us purchases. Imagine that he comes to you with pages and pages of plans he’s sketched out in crayon. The “car” will cost $22,827.35 worth of toys.

"Why wouldn’t you reach for your credit card? Is that because you’re against teaching kids engineering? Is it because his sworn enemy, your daughter, is paying you off? Or perhaps it’s because this project is obviously beyond the capability of a five-year-old, and that his crayon schematics don’t offer convincing evidence that he is in fact the kind of once-in-a-generation prodigy who could somehow pull it off."
True that!

Nice link, thanks.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-19-2012, 03:11 PM

Thanks for posting the "most important parts;" hopefully, that'll keep you from moving the argument when I say, despite the bunch of words you just posted, Hansen still overestimated the temperatures in 1988...in all three scenarios (none of which were hidden from the forum and appear in the graph I posted with the article).

Rarely, if ever, do AGCC proponents underestimate. It's all about the sensationalism. Polar bears, glaciers, the snows of Kilimanjaro, etc... But that's a whole other topic. Scenario A was the one latched onto by alarmists and used to try and beat the world into the environmental religion of AGCC.

By the way, in 1969, the Apollo 13 astronauts maintained a trajectory -- that brought them back to Earth -- using a slide rule. That's 19 years before Hansen botched the math on climate and started this climate hysteria nonsense we're having to deal with today.

You completely ignore his argument about emissions being at a lower trajectory than that max one you keep harping but instead on a lower projection.

You ignore my explanation about how engineering is based on setting up design such that they systems are comprised almost entirely of periodic LTI systems that are easy to solve. IE you solve a matrix with polynomials and exponentials.

You cannot bound nature like you can cut off a wingtip; nature keeps going but it never goes back to where it started, feedsback into itself uncontrollably and has no aversion to squaring and cubing itself over and over again which blows up any openended integration you may want to do.

The Mercury and Appollo moon missions were the fruits of 100s of years of labor. Rockets were being blown up back in the 1700s. Most of the math for the dynamics of the system came from Newton and the electrical systems were very simple analog systems.

In contrast, the math of nondeterministic equations is still a work in progress. All in all your comparison is ignorant.

As for sensaltionalism, you have three anecdotes that have been played up but ignore stuff like the ice cap shrinkage and sealevel rise projections MiG has been pointing out to us match up with current projections.

You are just going to believe what you want to believe with an infirm grasp on science or scence history.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-19-2012, 03:13 PM

All that to say, "It's Kentucky Windage."

It's okay to say you do not understand what they said. Its not a simple sum but something else. You do not understadn so instead posture. I notice a trend.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-19-2012, 03:16 PM

That's fucking hilarious! :lmao

Now ask him what he thinks that the scientists that authored or coauthored 40% of his list has received money from Exxon for decades.

It's fun watching hypocrisy in action.

Poptech

06-19-2012, 03:42 PM

Now ask him what he thinks that the scientists that authored or coauthored 40% of his list has received money from Exxon for decades.

It's fun watching hypocrisy in action.
Why would he ask a dishonest question? Why are you lying about and trying to smear highly credentialed scientists simply because they disagree with your scientific position on an issue?

It is fun embarrassing you drug addict,

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil? (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html)

FuzzyLumpkins

06-19-2012, 03:44 PM

Why would he ask a dishonest question? Why are you lying about and trying to smear highly credentialed scientists simply because they disagree with your scientific position on an issue?

It is fun embarrassing you drug addict,

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil? (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html)

Sherwood Idso.

Poptech

06-19-2012, 03:48 PM

Sherwood Idso.
Did you not read the link drug addict?

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil? (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html)

Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics Cum Laude, University of Minnesota (1964); M.S. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1966); Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1967); Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962); National Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967); Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974); Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1972-1993); Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974); Vice-Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975); Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001); Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976); Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977); Secretary, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980); President, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982); Member, Task Force on "Alternative Crops", Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983); Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2007); Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present); Member, Botanical Society of America; Member, American Geophysical Union; Member, American Society of Agronomy; ISI Highly Cited Researcher (http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/highlycited/names/i/); President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)

Idso: "I presume that all of the original basic scientific research articles of which I am an author that appear on the list were written while I was an employee of the USDA's Agricultural Research Service; and, therefore, the only source of funding would have been the U.S. government. I retired from my position as a Research Physicist at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in late 2001 and have not written any new reports of new original research. Since then, I have concentrated solely on studying new research reports written by others that appear each week in a variety of different scientific journals and writing brief reviews of them for the CO2Science website. In both of these segments of my scientific career, I have always presented -- and continue to present -- what I believe to be the truth. Funding never has had, and never will have, any influence on what I believe, what I say, and what I write."

I take it you are also mathematically illiterate if you think Dr. Idso's papers are 40% of the list.

MannyIsGod

06-19-2012, 05:14 PM

A couple of observations.

1) If you understood the issue, you would be able to explain it without linking, and

3) Anytime you tell me there are 16 somethings in a box but, it could be as low as 6 or as many as 24, that's not a "fairly small" error range.

Just sayin'

:lol so because I don't take the time to type out what is already on the internet for you to read I don't understand it? If thats the stance you want to take then by all means take it. I have dumbed things down enough for you.

MannyIsGod

06-19-2012, 05:16 PM

MannyIsGod

06-19-2012, 05:17 PM

From the caption (bolded and underlined, just like Manny did because, that makes me smarter):

Aren't "summing" and "addition" the same thing?

Are summing and addition the same thing? No, dumbass. This is why you don't understand half this shit.

MannyIsGod

06-19-2012, 05:18 PM

Back to the cartoonist's site? :lmao

The Truth about Skeptical Science (http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html)

Real world emissions are not close to C, especially for CO2 (allegedly the most dangerous GHG) which is closest to B.

SS changed the temperature dataset to make it look less bad and they still show Hansen was wrong. His scenario C is worthless and Dr. Michaels was right not to include it as it's emission scenario has nothing to do with reality. Hansen was wrong and continues to be wrong today. Warmist in chief Hansen should never of been listened to in 1988 and should not be listened to today as his predictions are worthless.

Ad hominem, Aspie!!!!!!!!

MannyIsGod

06-19-2012, 05:18 PM

Irrefutable ad hominem!!!!!!!!!!

MannyIsGod

06-19-2012, 05:21 PM

being a cartoonist with a website >>>>>>> having aspergers with a website, IMO.

Yonivore

06-19-2012, 05:22 PM

:lol so because I don't take the time to type out what is already on the internet for you to read I don't understand it?
That and you don't directly answer any question.

If thats the stance you want to take then by all means take it. I have dumbed things down enough for you.
Did AGCC proponents change the way they normalize temperatures, why, and to what effect?

Here, if you want an example of how easy it is to dumb down a complex issue, take a cue from this guy:

To say that modeling the climate for long-term predictions is difficult given the current state of climate science is like saying that it would be difficult for your five-year-old son to build a 400 horsepower car from re-purposed Toys ‘R’ Us purchases. Imagine that he comes to you with pages and pages of plans he’s sketched out in crayon. The “car” will cost $22,827.35 worth of toys.

Why wouldn’t you reach for your credit card? Is that because you’re against teaching kids engineering? Is it because his sworn enemy, your daughter, is paying you off? Or perhaps it’s because this project is obviously beyond the capability of a five-year-old, and that his crayon schematics don’t offer convincing evidence that he is in fact the kind of once-in-a-generation prodigy who could somehow pull it off.

If one understands how monumental an undertaking it would be to produce a sound climate model, one can see that today’s climate modelers are making assertions no less implausible than our five-year old’s fantasy.
He's saying what I was saying, only better.

You don't know enough about what affects global climate to model, much less forecast, what it will be doing in the near or distant future. Period.

There is absolutely no reason to believe anyone has a good enough handle on climate science to make them credible. Period.

MannyIsGod

06-19-2012, 05:23 PM

From the link:

True that!

Nice link, thanks.

Except that the link acknowledges warming that you do not. Why try to take up a stance that is not yours?

MannyIsGod

06-19-2012, 05:26 PM

That and you don't directly answer any question.

Well, I'm never going to type out shit that is already there on the internet and I've answered all of your questions. You are too stupid to read properly and understand much of what I am saying but that is not within my ability to fix.

Did AGCC proponents change the way they normalize temperatures, why, and to what effect?

I already answered it and as opposed to repeating myself I'd much rather watch you repeat yourself endlessly as it provides me with amusement.

Here, if you want an example of how easy it is to dumb down a complex issue, take a cue from this guy:

He's saying what I was saying, only better.

You don't know enough about what affects global climate to model, much less forecast, what it will be doing in the near or distant future. Period.

You're wrong. Companies put billions of dollars on the line each and every day based on climate forecasts. Governments do it. The military does it. You are too stupid to understand how this works, but that is once again, not my problem.

There is absolutely no reason to believe anyone has a good enough handle on climate science to make them credible. Period.

When you say shit like this you just make yourself look even dumber. Please continue.

Yonivore

06-19-2012, 05:28 PM

Did Apollo 13 astronauts maintain a climate model with a slide rule? Are you not the person who said the atmosphere was more complex than orbital mechanics? Then why are you using that as an anaology?
1988 Hansen vs. 1969 astronauts.

So retarded.
The point is, why should we believe climate scientists have any more of a handle on it now than they did in 1988? The answer, we shouldn't. Why? Because as you point out before calling me retarded, and as we both asserted earlier in the thread, climate science if exponentially (I can't use infinitely anymore) more complex than orbital mechanics.

In fact, I would suggest, orbital physics is to climate physics what that guy's five-year old is to the entire engineering team at Penske.

That's the point.

Hansen was as certain of his conclusions in 1988 as he is now.

MannyIsGod

06-19-2012, 05:46 PM

:lmao You don't think that climate science has a better handle on things with computing power that is far more advanced than 1988 NOW?

:lmao

Please keep going. PLEASE.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-19-2012, 06:26 PM

Did you not read the link drug addict?

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil? (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html)

Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics Cum Laude, University of Minnesota (1964); M.S. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1966); Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1967); Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962); National Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967); Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974); Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1972-1993); Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974); Vice-Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975); Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001); Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976); Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977); Secretary, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980); President, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982); Member, Task Force on "Alternative Crops", Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983); Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2007); Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present); Member, Botanical Society of America; Member, American Geophysical Union; Member, American Society of Agronomy; ISI Highly Cited Researcher (http://researchanalytics.thomsonreuters.com/highlycited/names/i/); President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)

I take it you are also mathematically illiterate if you think Dr. Idso's papers are 40% of the list.

Thanks for fetching the can, monkey.

I will never click on your links, aspie. Your behavior has been troubling and I do not even want you to have an inkling of my IP or anything else for that matter.

Why bother anyway? You are like a vending machine. It's hilarious.

Sherwood Idso, you ask: here's your canned answer.
My list is questioned: here's my canned refutations.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-19-2012, 06:48 PM

Yoni doesn't even want to touch the stuff that I am saying. It's quite funny.

I explained the difference between the aerospace engineering problems circa 1960 and their relative solutions versus climate modeling and the problems it brings to the table. It the difference between engineering and reverse engineering but with the caveat that the original design was not based on periodic LTI systems and with an extra special heaping of unbounded feedback loops.

Yoni, how on Earth do you think that you, a law enforcement type, are in any position to judge what is or is not credible regarding anything scientific?

And the 5 year old analogy is just gratuitous dismissal. the 5 year old analogy enters in the notion of relative age and implies that there is someone elder and thus more qualified to make the attempt.

That is clearly not the case. These are the best scientists in the world from places like Cambridge, Standford, MIT, Minnesota, etc as well as the the pinnacle of the US scientific community exemplified by the NAS. Not some stupid kid but instead thousands of the brightest most educated, most trained and experienced minds on this planet.

If you want to characterize someone's relative understanding then reflect on yourself. Whats the highest level of math and/or statistics that you are fluent in? Whats the highest level of chemistry, physics, biology, mechanics, systems analysis, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, aerodynamics, celestial mechanics, astrophysics etc that are all central to climate science that you are fluent in?

Yonivore

06-19-2012, 06:53 PM

:lmao You don't think that climate science has a better handle on things with computing power that is far more advanced than 1988 NOW?

:lmao

Please keep going. PLEASE.
Don't talk to me, talk to the guy that agrees with you that the planet is warming.

Except that the link acknowledges warming that you do not. Why try to take up a stance that is not yours?
See how that works?

Poptech

06-19-2012, 07:38 PM

being a cartoonist with a website...
Computer analyst beats cartoonist.

Poptech

06-19-2012, 07:40 PM

Thanks for fetching the can,

I will never click on your links... Your behavior has been troubling and I do not even want you to have an inkling of my IP or anything else for that matter.

Why bother anyway? You are like a vending machine. It's hilarious.

Sherwood Idso, you ask: here's your canned answer.
My list is questioned: here's my canned refutations.
Drug addict, I provide the information for others reading this not for your damaged brain. You should stop smoking so much pot.

Poptech

06-19-2012, 07:41 PM

You don't think that climate science has a better handle on things with computing power that is far more advanced than 1988 NOW?
:lmao why do computer illiterates always discuss the topic they are illiterate on? Faster computing power does not make something that is not fully understood anymore accurate. Where did you learn this? Skeptical Science? :rollin

Poptech

06-19-2012, 08:09 PM

These are the best scientists in the world from places like Cambridge, Standford, MIT, Minnesota, etc as well as the the pinnacle of the US scientific community exemplified by the NAS. Not some stupid kid but instead thousands of the brightest most educated, most trained and experienced minds on this planet.
Oh really? I can find credentialed skeptics from all of these Universities and the NAS,

Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics Magna Cum Laude, Harvard University (1960); S.M. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961); Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964); Research Associate in Meteorology, University of Washington (1964-1965); NATO Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965-1966); Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967); Visiting Lecturer in Meteorology, UCLA (1967); NCAR Outstanding Publication Award (1967); AMS Meisinger Award (1968); Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972); Summer Lecturer, NCAR Colloquium (1968, 1972, 1978); AGU Macelwane Award (1969); Visiting Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel Aviv University (1969); Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1970-1976); Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983); Visiting Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975); Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Hebrew University (1979); Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983); Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamical Meteorology, Harvard University (1982-1983); AMS Charney Award (1985); Vikram Amblal Sarabhai Professor, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India (1985); Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship (1986-1987); Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA (1988-Present); Sackler Visiting Professor, Tel Aviv University (1992); Landsdowne Lecturer, University of Victoria (1993); Bernhard Haurwitz Memorial Lecturer, American Meteorological Society (1997); Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow, American Geophysical Union; Fellow, American Meteorological Society; Member, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Member, National Academy of Sciences; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1983-Present); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)

Freeman J. Dyson, Scholar, Winchester College, UK (1936-1941); B.A. Mathematics, University of Cambridge, UK (1945); Operations Research, R.A.F. Bomber Command, UK (1943-1945); Research Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University, UK (1946–1947); Commonwealth Fellow, Cornell University (1947–1948); Commonwealth Fellow, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1948–1949); Research Fellow, University of Birmingham (1949–1951); Professor of Physics, Cornell University (1951-1953); Fellow, Royal Society (1952); Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1953-1994); Chairman, Federation of American Scientists (1962-1963); Member, National Academy of Sciences (1964); Danny Heineman Prize, American Physical Society (1965); Lorentz Medal, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (1966); Visiting Professor, Yeshiva University (1967-1968); Hughes Medal, The Royal Society (1968); Max Planck Medal, German Physical Society (1969); J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize, Center for Theoretical Studies (1970); Visiting Professor, Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (1974-1975); Corresponding Member, Bavarian Academy of Sciences (1975); Harvey Prize, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology (1977); Wolf Prize in Physics, Wolf Foundation of Herzlia, Israel (1981); National Books Critics Circle Award - Non-Fiction (1984); Andrew Gemant Award, American Institute of Physics (1988); Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, Phi Beta Kappa Society (1988); Honorary Fellow, Trinity College, Cambridge University, UK (1989); Foreign Associate of the Academy of Sciences, Paris, France (1989); Member, National Research Council Commission on Life Sciences (1989-1991); Britannica Award (1990); Matteucci Medal, National Academy of Sciences dei Quaranta, Italy (1990); Oersted Medal, American Association of Physics Teachers (1991); Enrico Fermi Award, United States Department of Energy (1993); Montgomery Fellow, Dartmouth College (1994); Wright Prize, Harvey Mudd College (1994); Antonio Feltrinelli International Prize, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy (1996); Lewis Thomas Prize, Rockefeller University (1996); Joseph A. Burton Forum Award, American Physical Society (1999); Rydell Professor, Gustavus Adolphus College (1999); Honorary Member, London Mathematical Society (2000); Templeton Prize (2000); Member, NASA Advisory Council (2001-2003); Page-Barbour lecturer, University of Virginia (2004); Member, committee on Next Generation Biowarfare (2004-2005); Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University (1994-Present); 21 Honorary Degrees

Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics Cum Laude, University of Minnesota (1964); M.S. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1966); Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1967); Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962); National Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967); Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974); Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1972-1993); Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974); Vice-Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975); Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001); Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976); Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977); Secretary, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980); President, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982); Member, Task Force on "Alternative Crops", Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983); Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2007); Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present); Member, Botanical Society of America; Member, American Geophysical Union; Member, American Society of Agronomy; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)

Robert M. Carter, B.Sc. (Hons) Geology, University of Otago (1963), Ph.D. Palaeontology, University of Cambridge (1968), Assistant Lecturer, Department of Geology, University of Otago (1963), Senior Lecturer, Department of Geology, University of Otago (1968-1980), Hochstetter Lecturer, Geological Society of New Zealand (1975), Professor and Head, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University (1981-1999), Visiting Experts Program, Carrington Polytechnic Institute (1994), Honorary Fellow, Royal Society of New Zealand (1997), Special Investigator Research Award, Australian Research Council (1998-2002), Outstanding Research Career Award, Geological Society of New Zealand (2005), Adjunct Research Professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University (1998-Present), Visiting Research Professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide (2001-Present)

David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, University Of Sydney, Australia (1979); M.A. Applied Mathematics, University Of Sydney, Australia (1980); B.E. Electrical Engineering (First-Class Honors), University Of Sydney, Australia (1983); University Medal, University Of Sydney, Australia (1983); M.S. Statistics, Stanford University (1984); M.S. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University (1985); Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University (1989); Engineer, Department of Main Roads, New South Wales, Australia (1981-1982); Engineer, Telecom Australia (1983); Research Assistant, Electrical Engineering Department, Stanford University (1984-1988); Electronics Technician, Chemistry Department, Stanford University (1988); Staff Scientist & Software Engineer, KLA Instruments Corporation (1989-1990); Information Engineer, Aquatech Pty Ltd (1994-1996); Applications Programmer and Modeler, Canberra (1996–2005); Carbon Accounting Modeler, Australian Greenhouse Office and Department of Climate Change, Australian Government (1999-2005); Consultant, Australian Greenhouse Office and Department of Climate Change, Australian Government (2008-2010)

Wild Cobra

06-20-2012, 02:29 AM

Are summing and addition the same thing? No, dumbass. This is why you don't understand half this shit.
Maybe because sometimes you AGW alarmists remind us skeptics of people like Mouse and Cosmored, so solidly believing in something you can't show proof of. I rank the alarmist attitude to the same degree of dogma as those who believe we didn't go to the moon.

Wild Cobra

06-20-2012, 02:34 AM

:lmao why do computer illiterates always discuss the topic they are illiterate on? Faster computing power does not make something that is not fully understood anymore accurate. Where did you learn this? Skeptical Science? :rollin
The faster computers go allow them to manipulate the model at faster paces to design the perfect alarmist model. Instead of waiting days for a power computer of the past to spit the data out, they only have to wait hours, before they can tweak the model again.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-20-2012, 06:17 AM

Poptech is still unable to deviate from his canned answers. I said that they were the ones that were working on the climate models not that they were biased one way or another.

As for your claim to be a computer analyst that does not trump the personality disorder that you claim to have. Aspergers is noted for the inability to discern nuance or degree ie with you its all or nothing which severely linits your cognitive abilities.

Computers are dependent on binary logic and the ALU's, busses etc are engineered to perform an exact manner. As such, your aspergers is not a limitation. OTOH, whenever uncertainty evers the equation you are uable to take any sort of middle ground. Its either irrefutable or completely wrong and after observing your behavior, its obvious that you exhibit exactly that.

As such you can never be considered objective. Your preconceived notion are absolute and intractable. You are a cliche to your disorder.

You throw out my admission to smoking pot as a constant ad hominem however you completely fail to quantify how it impacts or even point to specific examples. In contrast, I just showed specific examples of your behavior that demonstrate a complete lack of objectivity.

You also are deceptive as demonstrated by your editing of posts weeks after original postings and claiming that they were not your admissions of your disorder but instead that I am a drug addict. That exhibits a deep shame and cognizance of your own behavior and as I have told you before that points to axis 2 such as NPD/OCD.

A political cartoonist is an artist and can draw whatever they like. Antisocial behavior is quite another thing.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-20-2012, 06:23 AM

:lmao why do computer illiterates always discuss the topic they are illiterate on? Faster computing power does not make something that is not fully understood anymore accurate. Where did you learn this? Skeptical Science? :rollin

It allows them to use more complex models and more quickly get their results so they can refine the formulas. Quicker processing means quicker evolution of the science. You familiar with sampling rate and reconstruction of signals?

That is intuitive on the simple notion of cycles per second and has nothing to do with the ability to operate windows, write code or the like.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-20-2012, 06:31 AM

Oh and to quote from greenfyre, "meet the denominator."

http://www.pacinst.org/climate/climate_statement.pdf

From 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences:
We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.
Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial— scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."
For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.
But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:
(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.
(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.
(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.
(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.
Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business- as-usual practices. We urge our policymakers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.
We also call for an end to McCarthy- like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.
The signatories are all members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences but are not speaking on its behalf or on behalf of their institutions:

255 scientists including 11 nobel prize winners all of whom are members of the NAS that specifically support AGW concerns. Lets not forget what the NAS official position is.

Compare that to 2 scientists that you claim to be skeptics. It should be noted your claims of skepticism have to be taken with a grain of salt. You include papers that are about positive feedback mechanisms in your skeptic papers.

Yonivore

06-20-2012, 06:44 AM

:lmao why do computer illiterates always discuss the topic they are illiterate on? Faster computing power does not make something that is not fully understood anymore accurate. Where did you learn this? Skeptical Science? :rollin
Last I checked, GIGO still applies - no matter how much faster you're able to shovel it in. You just get bigger, faster, more complicated mistakes.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-20-2012, 06:51 AM

Maybe one day Yoni will be able to point to specifics and not generalities. Sucjh as specific normalization factors or formula coefficients that are incorrect.

I guess in the meantime we will just have to settle for claims of incredulity based on said generalities.

They were wrong on one projection among many possible trajectories based on emissions on the high end from 24 years ago so they must be wrong now.

Climate is too complex but you cannot point to any specifics.

Quantification of measurements is not summed correctly but not a single normalization factor can be pointed to.

The list goes one and I am still wondering what if any scientific background yoni has.

DarrinS

06-20-2012, 07:23 AM

Note to Fuzzy -- Moore's Law doesn't make shitty computer models better -- just gives the shitty results faster.

The Apollo Guidance Computer had 36k of ROM and 2k RAM.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-20-2012, 07:28 AM

Note to Fuzzy -- Moore's Law doesn't make shitty computer models better -- just gives the shitty results faster.

The Apollo Guidance Computer had 36k of ROM and 2k RAM.

Again, point to specific errors within the modelling. We have posted and discussed the ocean models extensively. WC claimed they did not consider solubility states which was wrong.

We have looked at the MIT paper from the 1970s which used partial derivates that you should be familiar with in describing flux.

We have looked at BEST and their normalization factors in their summations of surface temperature measurements.

Where are the errors, where are they going in the wrong direction? Be specific instead of throwing out the typical generalities.

DarrinS

06-20-2012, 07:29 AM

Just as high definition doesn't necessarily improve shitty movies and length of Fuzzy's posts doesn't improve his ideas.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-20-2012, 07:32 AM

Just as high definition doesn't necessarily improve shitty movies and length of Fuzzy's posts doesn't improve his ideas.

Just as baseless analogies are baseless so are baseless claims of bad ideas baseless.

DarrinS

06-20-2012, 07:33 AM

Again, point to specific errors within the modelling. We have posted and discussed the ocean models extensively. WC claimed they did not consider solubility states which was wrong.

We have looked at the MIT paper from the 1970s which used partial derivates that you should be familiar with in describing flux.

We have looked at BEST and their normalization factors in their summations of surface temperature measurements.

Where are the errors, where are they going in the wrong direction? Be specific instead of throwing out the typical generalities.

When I see programmers comment like "fudge factor" and "very artificial correction", it raises red flags -- but maybe that's just me.

Yonivore

06-20-2012, 07:45 AM

Understanding the Global Warming Debate (http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/4/)

Excellent article.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-20-2012, 08:47 AM

Forbes a chairman for the heritage foundation. they were present amongst other things financial industry agricultre, manufacturing industry, mining interests

trade from southeast asia northern asian hubs, media moguls and things of that nature they are parts from early american industrialists .

Their means of business rely on the status quo remaining the sa. Farmer rely on fossil fuels to provide fertiliz, pesticid, storage harvesting. They're are bot objective.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-20-2012, 08:53 AM

When I see programmers comment like "fudge factor" and "very artificial correction", it raises red flags -- but maybe that's just me.

who stated these things and in what context?

Poptech

06-20-2012, 12:11 PM

Poptech is still unable to deviate from his canned answers.
Your mind is so damaged you delusionally believe every answer I give is canned.

As for your claim to be a computer analyst that does not trump the personality disorder that you claim to have. Aspergers is noted for the inability to discern nuance or degree ie with you its all or nothing which severely linits your cognitive abilities.
I do not have aspergers you dumb drug addict and I can discern nuance and degree but computers do not work based on nuance, outside of a hardware issue or cosmic rays flipping memory states they always give the answer they were programmed for.

Computers are dependent on binary logic and the ALU's, busses etc are engineered to perform an exact manner. ..OTOH, whenever uncertainty evers the equation you are uable to take any sort of middle ground. Its either irrefutable or completely wrong and after observing your behavior, its obvious that you exhibit exactly that.
That is how computers work, uncertainty (random variables) makes the results wrong not "close". There is no middle ground to take, your mental limitations makes it impossible for you to comprehend such logic.

As such you can never be considered objective.
I am completely objective and have forgotten more about computer systems than you know. Climate models are simply a form of confirmation bias, programmed to the get the results that the scientists creating them want, they prove nothing but the computer illiteracy of those scientists and anyone who believes the accuracy of their results. They are the code based on the subjective opinions of the scientists creating them.

You throw out my admission to smoking pot as a constant ad hominem however you completely fail to quantify how it impacts or even point to specific examples. In contrast, I just showed specific examples of your behavior that demonstrate a complete lack of objectivity.
Pot causes brain damage as it has with your drug addicted mind,

Brain Damage:
Cannabis and adolescence: A dangerous cocktail (http://muhc.ca/newsroom/news/cannabis-and-adolescence-dangerous-cocktail) (McGill University Health Centre)
Cannabis 'can cause psychosis in healthy people' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5919207/Cannabis-can-cause-psychosis-in-healthy-people.html) (Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London)
Cannabis Could Increase Risks Of Psychotic Illness By 40 Percent (http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/mediacentre/mediareleases/jul07/cannabis-could-increase-risk-of-psychotic-illness-later-in-life-by-40-per-cent.html) (Cardiff University, UK)
Cannabis Increases Risk Of Psychosis (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041201143205.htm) (British Medical Journal)
Cannabis increases risk of depression and schizophrenia (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-11/bmj-cir112002.php) (British Medical Journal)
Cannabis ingredient causes toxic psychosis (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1486934/Cannabis-ingredient-causes-toxic-psychosis.html) (University of Lausanne, Switzerland)
Cannabis link to psychosis (http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/articles/2011/feb/cannabis_study.html) (University of New South Wales, Australia)
Cannabis smokers 'are taking huge risk of psychotic illness' (http://weba.iop.kcl.ac.uk/news/default.aspx?id=124) (Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London)
Cannabis Triggers Transient Schizophrenia-like Symptoms (http://opac.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=2903) (Yale School of Medicine)
Cannabis use 'dulls the brain' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1855730.stm) (Journal of the American Medical Association)
Cannabis use precedes the onset of psychotic symptoms in young people (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-03/bmj-cup022811.php) (British Medical Journal)
Concerns over mental health risk of smoking cannabis (http://www.medwire-news.md/51/3271/General_Medicine/Concerns_over_mental_health_risk_of_smoking_cannab is.html) (British Journal of Psychiatry)
Daily Consumption Of Cannabis Predisposes To Appearance Of Psychosis And Schizophrenia (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090325132328.htm) (University of Granada)
Daily Pot Smoking May Hasten Onset of Psychosis (http://shared.web.emory.edu/emory/news/releases/2009/12/daily-pot-use-may-lead-to-psychosis.html) (Emory University)
Early Cannabis Use Increases Risk of Schizophrenia (http://www.otago.ac.nz/prodcons/groups/public/documents/webcontent/otago004401.pdf) (University of Otago, New Zealand)
Early cannabis users three times more likely to have psychotic symptoms (http://www.uq.edu.au/news/?article=20723) (University of Queensland, Australia)
Frequent Marijuana Use May Affect Brain Function (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000331090541.htm) (NeuroReport Journal)
Heavy Cannabis Use May Lead to Psychotic Symptoms (http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2005/04/20050410.php) (University of Otago, New Zealand)
Heavy Marijuana use has a detrimental impact on intelligence (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-04/cmaj-mio032802.php) (Canadian Medical Association Journal)
Heavy Marijuana Use May Damage Developing Brain In Teens, Young Adults (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090202175105.htm) (Children's Hospital of Philadelphia)
How cannabis causes 'cognitive chaos' in the brain (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/neuroscience/bn-news/2011/111025-cannabis-jones.html) (University of Bristol, UK)
How Marijuana Causes Memory Deficits (http://www.nature.com/neuro/press_release/nn0909.html) (Nature Neuroscience)
How marijuana impairs memory (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/cp-hmi022412.php) (Cell Journal)
How Smoking Marijuana Damages The Fetal Brain (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070524145037.htm) (Science)
Human Study Shows Greater Cognitive Deficits in Marijuana Users Who Start Young (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101116104202.htm) (Society for Neuroscience)
Lab study shows THC exposure as adolescents linked to negative effects of THC as adults (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-04/foas-lss040509.php) (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology)
Long-term cannabis use causes brain injury (http://archive.uninews.unimelb.edu.au/view-38146.html) (Archives of General Psychiatry Journal)
Marijuana And Alcohol Taken Together Induced Widespread Nerve Cell Death In Brains Of Young Rats (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080408150512.htm) (Annals of Neurology Journal)
Marijuana Damages Brain (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269256,00.html) (King's College London)
Marijuana Is Linked to Brain Damage (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00A11F63B5C1A7493C6A81789D95F45 8785F9) (The Lancet Medical Journal)
Marijuana Use Affects Blood Flow In Brain Even After Abstinence (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050211084701.htm) (Neurology Journal)
Marijuana use in pregnancy damages kids' learning (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3543-marijuana-use-in-pregnancy-damages-kids-learning.html) (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)
Marijuana Use Takes Toll On Adolescent Brain Function (http://www.uc.edu/News/NR.aspx?ID=9011) (University of Cincinnati)
Memory, speed of thinking get worse over time with marijuana use (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/aaon-mso030706.php) (American Academy of Neurology)
Molecular Imaging Shows Chronic Marijuana Smoking Affects Brain Chemistry (http://interactive.snm.org/index.cfm?PageID=10762) (Society of Nuclear Medicine)
More Evidence Of Cannabis-induced Psychosis (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050419105717.htm) (BMC Psychiatry Journal)
New RCSI research demonstrates how cannabis use during adolescence affects brain regions associated with schizophrenia (http://www.rcsi.ie/index.jsp?p=100&n=110&a=2164) (Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland)
New research reveals how cannabis alters brain function (http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/news/default.aspx?id=274) (Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London)
Scans reveal brain damage from cannabis is like schizophrenia (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article758106.ece) (Albert Einstein College of Medicine)
Schizophrenia Linked To Dysfunction In Molecular Brain Pathway Activated By Marijuana (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080707161411.htm) (Archives of General Psychiatry Journal)
Skunk 'poses greatest risk of psychosis' (http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/news/?id=361) (Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London)
Skunk smokers 18 times more likely to be psychotic (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/health/2235585/Skunk-smokers-18-times-more-likely-to-be-psychotic.html) (Royal College of Psychiatrists)
Smoking cannabis increases the risk of depression in the case of genetic vulnerability (http://www.ru.nl/english/general/news_agenda/news/redactionele/smoking-cannabis/) (Radboud University, The Netherlands)
Starting marijuana use during teens may result in cognitive impairment later in life (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-05/niod-smu050203.php) (NIH National Institute on Drug Abuse)
Teen Drug Use Associated With Psychiatric Disorders Later In Life (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/01/030115070706.htm) (NIH National Institute On Drug Abuse)
Teen Marijuana Use Worsens Depression, Leads To More Serious Mental Illness (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080509105348.htm) (Office of National Drug Control Policy)

You also are deceptive as demonstrated by your editing of posts weeks after original postings and claiming that they were not your admissions of your disorder but instead that I am a drug addict. That exhibits a deep shame and cognizance of your own behavior and as I have told you before that points to axis 2 such as NPD/OCD.
I played you like a fiddle you drug addict and exposed you for what I expected from day one, that you a brain damaged pot head. I have no shame playing with drug addicts like you as people like you are not even worthy of compassion, you are waste of society. You are below the gutter trash on the street an evolutionary failure.

Poptech

06-20-2012, 12:21 PM

It allows them to use more complex models and more quickly get their results so they can refine the formulas. Quicker processing means quicker evolution of the science.
:lmao It simply allows them to get the wrong results faster and to compound these errors over longer time frames.

Computational science: ...Error …why scientific programming does not compute. (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101013/full/467775a.html) (Nature, Volume 467, pp. 775-777, October 2010)

Researchers are spending more and more time writing computer software to model biological structures, simulate the early evolution of the Universe and analyse past climate data, among other topics. But programming experts have little faith that most scientists are up to the task. [...]

...as computers and programming tools have grown more complex, scientists have hit a "steep learning curve", says James Hack, director of the US National Center for Computational Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. "The level of effort and skills needed to keep up aren't in the wheelhouse of the average scientist."

As a general rule, researchers do not test or document their programs rigorously, and they rarely release their codes, making it almost impossible to reproduce and verify published results generated by scientific software, say computer scientists. [...]

Greg Wilson, a computer scientist in Toronto, Canada, who heads Software Carpentry — an online course aimed at improving the computing skills of scientists — says that he woke up to the problem in the 1980s, when he was working at a physics supercomputing facility at the University of Edinburgh, UK. After a series of small mishaps, he realized that, without formal training in programming, it was easy for scientists trying to address some of the Universe's biggest questions to inadvertently introduce errors into their codes, potentially "doing more harm than good". [...]

"There are terrifying statistics showing that almost all of what scientists know about coding is self-taught," says Wilson. "They just don't know how bad they are."

As a result, codes may be riddled with tiny errors that do not cause the program to break down, but may drastically change the scientific results that it spits out.

Poptech

06-20-2012, 12:29 PM

...11 nobel prize winners all of whom are members of the NAS that specifically support AGW concerns.
I only have 3 nobel prize winners,

Kary Mullis, B.S. Chemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology (1966); Ph.D. Biochemistry, University of California, Berkeley (1972); Lecturer, Department of Biochemistry, University of California, Berkeley (1972); Post-doctoral Fellow, Pediatric Cardiology, University of Kansas Medical School (1973-1977); Post-doctoral Fellow, Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California, San Francisco (1977-1979); Scientist, Department of Chemistry, Cetus Corporation (1979-1984); Scientist, Department of Human Genetics, Cetus Corporation (1984-1986); Director of Molecular Biology, Xytronyx Inc. (1986-1988); William Allan Memorial Award, American Society of Human Genetics (1990); Viral Hepatitis Research Foundation of Japan Award (1991); California Scientist of the Year Award (1992); Cetus Corporation Biotechnology Research Award, American Society for Microbiology (1992); Robert Koch Prize (1992); Vice President of Research, Atomic Tags Inc. (1992-1993); Japan Prize, Science and Technology Foundation of Japan (1993); Outstanding Contributions To Clinical Chemistry Award, American Association for Clinical Chemistry (1993); Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1993); Gustavus J. Esselen Award for Chemistry in the Public Interest, American Chemical Society (1994); Hon. D.Sc. (Honorary Doctorate of Science), University of South Carolina (1994); Distinguished Visiting Professor, The University of South Carolina, College of Science and Mathematics (1994-Present); Vice President of Molecular Biology, VYREX Corporation (1997-1998); Induction, National Inventors Hall of Fame (1998); Vice President of Molecular Biology, Burstein Technologies (1999-2003); Distinguished Researcher, Children’s Hospital at Oakland Research Institute at Oakland (2003-Present); Founder and Chief Scientific Officer, Altermune, LLC (2003-Present)

"To make predictions about what follows from here and when, and to audaciously begin the discussion by implicating our humble species in the whole thing [Global Warming] is worse than audacious, it’s pathetic" - Kary Mullis

Ivar Giaever, M.E., Norwegian Institute of Technology (1952); Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1964); Engineer, Advanced Engineering Program, General Electric Company (1954–1956); Applied Mathematician, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (1956–1958); Researcher, Research and Development Center, General Electric Company (1958–1988); Guggenheim Fellowship, Biophysics, Cambridge University (1969-1970); Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1965); Nobel Prize in Physics (1973); Member, American Academy of Arts & Sciences (1974); Member, National Academy of Science (1974); Member, National Academy of Engineering (1975); Adjunct Professor of Physics, University of California, San Diego (1975); Visiting Professor, Salk Institute for Biological Studies (1975); Professor of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1988-2005); Founder and Chief Technology Officer, Applied BioPhysics (1991-Present); Professor Emeritus of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (2005-Present)

"I'm a skeptic. ...Global Warming it's become a new religion. You're not supposed to be against Global Warming. You have basically no choice. And I tell you how many scientists support that. But the number of scientists is not important. The only thing that's important is if the scientists are correct; that's the important part." - Ivar Giaever

Robert Laughlin, A.B. Mathematics, University of California, Berkeley (1972); Ph.D. Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1979); Fellow, IBM (1976-1978); Postdoctoral Member, Technical Staff, Bell Laboratories (1979–1981); Research Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1982–2004); Associate Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1985–1989); E.O. Lawrence Award for Physics (1985); Oliver E. Buckley Condensed Matter Prize (1986); Eastman Kodak Lecturer, University of Rochester (1989); Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1989–1993); Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences (1990); Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Physics, Stanford University (1992–Present); Professor of Applied Physics, Stanford University (1993-2007); Member, National Academy of Sciences (1994), Nobel Prize in Physics (1998); Board Member, Science Foundation Ireland (2002-2003); President, Asia-Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics (2004-2006); President, Korean Advanced Institute for Science and Technology (2004–2006)

"The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control." - Robert Laughlin

Compare that to 2 scientists that you claim to be skeptics. It should be noted your claims of skepticism have to be taken with a grain of salt.
:lmao Dr. Lindzen and Dyson are not skeptics? :rollin

"Given that the evidence strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished." - Richard S. Lindzen

"My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models." - Freeman Dyson

You include papers that are about positive feedback mechanisms in your skeptic papers.
What paper is about positive feedback mechanisms that is not quoted to address a specific argument?

Wild Cobra

06-20-2012, 03:17 PM

Again, point to specific errors within the modelling. We have posted and discussed the ocean models extensively. WC claimed they did not consider solubility states which was wrong.

You only showed seasonal study material. I still don't think they considered the larger variation over time. There was one study someplace that supported Manny's 10 ppm, but that was one study. Does the whole AGW idea hinge on one study for natural ocean sourcing levels?

FuzzyLumpkins

06-20-2012, 06:51 PM

You only showed seasonal study material. I still don't think they considered the larger variation over time. There was one study someplace that supported Manny's 10 ppm, but that was one study. Does the whole AGW idea hinge on one study for natural ocean sourcing levels?

I showed you how they accounted for varying temperatures as per the season ie over a range of conditions. They applied that formula over years.

You completely miss the point. Essentially what you are doing is sampling two points over some arbitrary time period in terms of decades. In contrast, that particular paper was advocating taking samples for each season ie 4 times a year. Its how you analyze a periodic system.

This in no way indicates that the relative mins and maxes are static. it just means that when they talk about decades they are doing 40 samples per decade.

I do not expect you to understand this. You after all have admitted to having a learning disability. OTOH, anyone else reading this, this is why WC has no clue what he is talking about.

The models obviously indicate that over time the temperature goes up that why its called global WARMING.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-20-2012, 07:21 PM

As for Poptech

You can claim that you get me to respond in certain ways yet you offer no specifics.

By contrast, I got you to fill out a psychological survey that you later were so ashamed of that you edited 3 weeks later and have lied about it ever since.

I also feel that my vending machine analogy is apt. Just as someone can hit the coke button and get a can, anyone can just bring up one of the headers of your database and out comes the canned responses.

These are two specific examples of me doing just that. You can pull the "I know you are but what am I" routine but without specific examples it rings hollow.

Further, in your canned listings on pot one thing that I noticed in the headers in a lot of the word 'maybe.' That automatically enters into a level of probability. This goes back to what I am talking about regarding your aspergers. You do not understand degree.

I smoke pot so therefor in your limited brain that means all of that becomes abolutely true. This is a trend that becomes very apparent very quickly when dealing with you. At no point do you point to specific delusions other than your lying about filling out the survey admitting to aspergers and at no point do you point to specifics of memory loss.

Now this is not to say that I even concede those points as to the effects of pot. Quite the contrary but arguing with you is pointless but instead it is to illustrate to anyone else exactly how your mental illness limits your ability to understand uncertainties.

Next as to your posturing on being a computer analyst. That says nothing. You could work at the help desk for all we know. As to specifics that I work with, I work with VLSI, digital design, signal processing, controls, and some mechanics. If you know how to bit fiddle and modulate signals then great. If all you are is somebody with a Microsofy certification then that is something completely different. Seeing how your fanboism with Microsoft works I imagine you can guess what my estimation is.

Further, no one is arguing that legitimate scientists are skeptics. Its actually good that is the case in a peer review system. Of course bandwagoning is a fallacy. OTOH, when uncertainty exists and the overwhelming consensus is in one way and you yourself are not an expert then that is something else completely. Deep down its obvious that you understand this otherwise your wouldn't put such an emphasis on the number of articles in your database.

Finally, as to your credibility there are a couple of topics.

First, you lie. That is clear from your actions regarding your aspergers admission. If you don't like something you obviously have no compunction about lying about it. You also are pathological about it because you will go back and edit posts to cover your trail. It was an interesting case study of your pathology when I would point them out to you and you would immediately edit.

Second you are deceptive beyond just lying. Omission may not be a lie but it certainly leads people astray. A clear example is pulling 5 words from a study specific to lag but completely ignore the context of said lag and solar cycles and how while the increase solar exposure explains the release of CO2 it did not explain all of the arming and linked the CO2 increase to a feedback loop. You claim that it s a link to a specific argument but its obviously disingenuous. After all the study was a refutation to the argument. Another example would be your manipulation of ranges on graphs to make the anomalies difficult to see. You are pathological in that you never even acknowledge contrary logic, evidence or opinions. that defines bias.

Lastly, there is your disorder itself. You are mentally ill and you clearly display antisocial behavior. Further, your disorder limits your ability to empathize or even consider the thoughts of others. One only needs to look at your claims of irreffutability and your canned responses to just about everything to see the truth of that.

Now go ahead and do a line by line. I know its pointless to argue with someone with your mental illness so I am not going to waste my time. My intended audience is everyone else.

Poptech

06-20-2012, 11:36 PM

You didn't get me to fill anything out I did not want to fill out. I wanted to see how easy it was to change your sociopath ranting by injecting something else into the mix, it was like childs play. Just like there is nothing online about me personally that I want anyone to know that I did not plant. Once I saw the editing ability here, I could have all sorts of fun with you. Potheads like you are the dumbest human beings and easily manipulated. Don't you get why everyone is laughing at you and not with you? Only other drug addicts support you because they feel like they are defending themselves not because they really like you. The rest of society thinks you are a waste, an evolutionary mistake. I laugh every time you post, I mean really laugh. :lmao

I've never even tried illegals drugs because I do not have a weak mind like you. I am not a drug addict like you. I do not have a brain damaged by pot like you.

Your mental limitations make you unable to understand what a canned response is. I am not cutting and pasting my responses. This is simply a lame excuse for your memory loss due to your drug addiction. My responses simply triggers what you could not remember when you posted the same debunked nonsense again.

Your denial of how your drug addiction has ruined your brain is evident by your inability to recognize how bad it has become. I recognized it almost immediately with your irrational and incoherent behavior. Drug addicts like you are so easy to pick out because you are so dumb. Heavier users don't even try to defend it but instead rationalize or deny it like you do. They also attack the ones that expose it, like myself. You convinced yourself that it has not damaged your brain and you are still intelligent but you're not. You are a failure.

SnakeBoy

06-20-2012, 11:37 PM

Further, in your canned listings on pot one thing that I noticed in the headers in a lot of the word 'maybe.'

Wait, are you saying you are skeptical of the science.

ElNono

06-20-2012, 11:46 PM

First, you lie. That is clear from your actions regarding your aspergers admission. If you don't like something you obviously have no compunction about lying about it. You also are pathological about it because you will go back and edit posts to cover your trail. It was an interesting case study of your pathology when I would point them out to you and you would immediately edit.

This isn't news, tbh

ElNono

06-20-2012, 11:56 PM

:lmao why do computer illiterates always discuss the topic they are illiterate on? Faster computing power does not make something that is not fully understood anymore accurate. Where did you learn this? Skeptical Science? :rollin

Uh? This makes no sense. There's plenty of examples where faster computing power does result in more accurate/previously not possible research even if we don't fully understand how it all works. Sequencing complex DNA comes mind.

You call yourself a computer analyst? lol

Wild Cobra

06-21-2012, 02:43 AM

I showed you how they accounted for varying temperatures as per the season ie over a range of conditions. They applied that formula over years.

You completely miss the point. Essentially what you are doing is sampling two points over some arbitrary time period in terms of decades. In contrast, that particular paper was advocating taking samples for each season ie 4 times a year. Its how you analyze a periodic system.

This in no way indicates that the relative mins and maxes are static. it just means that when they talk about decades they are doing 40 samples per decade.

I do not expect you to understand this. You after all have admitted to having a learning disability. OTOH, anyone else reading this, this is why WC has no clue what he is talking about.

The models obviously indicate that over time the temperature goes up that why its called global WARMING.
You are wrong. I explained why you are wrong, and you still don't understand. I see no point in trying to inform you any longer as long as you refuse to acknowledge the truth.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-21-2012, 03:45 AM

You are wrong. I explained why you are wrong, and you still don't understand. I see no point in trying to inform you any longer as long as you refuse to acknowledge the truth.

Your explanation was that it only analyzed seasonal changes and not over a longer period of time.

You only showed seasonal study material. I still don't think they considered the larger variation over time.

I addressed that specifically. Bold for emphasis.

I showed you how they accounted for varying temperatures as per the season ie over a range of conditions. They applied that formula over years.

You completely miss the point. Essentially what you are doing is sampling two points over some arbitrary time period in terms of decades. In contrast, that particular paper was advocating taking samples for each season ie 4 times a year. Its how you analyze a periodic system.

This in no way indicates that the relative mins and maxes are static. it just means that when they talk about decades they are doing 40 samples per decade.

You are going to have to try harder than that.

Wild Cobra

06-21-2012, 03:55 AM

Your explanation was that it only analyzed seasonal changes and not over a longer period of time.

I said much more than that.

I addressed that specifically.

Of which didn't matter in regards to my other points.

You are going to have to try harder than that.

No, to continue to expect a different response from you would have people wondering if I am insane. After all, some say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over, and expecting a different result. I have come to realize that you are just a cyber bully. No matter what someone says who has earned a place of your list, you will never be anything but a childish bully.

Poptech

06-21-2012, 02:04 PM

Uh? This makes no sense. There's plenty of examples where faster computing power does result in more accurate/previously not possible research even if we don't fully understand how it all works. Sequencing complex DNA comes mind.
What are you talking about? Computers are very useful tools for analyzing and working with data. They are completely useless for producing accurate results running simulations where the physical system being simulated is not fully understood. What does that have to do with DNA sequencing?

FuzzyLumpkins

06-21-2012, 02:07 PM

I said much more than that.

Of which didn't matter in regards to my other points.

No, to continue to expect a different response from you would have people wondering if I am insane. After all, some say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over, and expecting a different result. I have come to realize that you are just a cyber bully. No matter what someone says who has earned a place of your list, you will never be anything but a childish bully.

Quote the post you are claiming to talk about.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-21-2012, 02:08 PM

Poptech

06-21-2012, 02:37 PM

Is a signal more accurately recreated at a higher or lower sample rate?
It cannot be accurately recreated in a computer simulation unless the physical processes of the simulation are 100% understood. Sampling rates does not change this fact. Running more samples, more often just gives your more results that are wrong, it does not increase accuracy as the simulation is broken by design.

ElNono

06-21-2012, 03:20 PM

What are you talking about? Computers are very useful tools for analyzing and working with data. They are completely useless for producing accurate results running simulations where the physical system being simulated is not fully understood. What does that have to do with DNA sequencing?

Computing power actually enables you to understand/research such unknowns. We still don't understand how genomes interact as a whole, but without computing power we just simply couldn't even break it down into genes, and categorize each one individually along with start testing individual interactions.

40 years ago that problem was intractable for any moderately complex DNA form. You couldn't even begin research on it.

There's nothing "magical" about physics. It simply requires research and enough computing power to actually be able to research/model/catalog/simulate such interactions. Now you can tell me there's physics models where simulating them in realtime or better are practically intractable at this time (which coincidentally is where I'm at with climate models in general). That's a fact, but increased computing power is a key component of overcoming that.

MannyIsGod

06-21-2012, 03:54 PM

The idea that you have to completely understand a system to make a model of it is absolutely stupid. There's a reason the saying says that every model is wrong.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-21-2012, 04:35 PM

The idea that you have to completely understand a system to make a model of it is absolutely stupid. There's a reason the saying says that every model is wrong.

Exactly.

There is a very clear example in engineering: aerodynamics. We have a very poor grasp as a whole of modeling turbulence. It like climate cycles is a nondeterministic system and cannot be modeled with any precision.

If what aspie was claiming was true then flight would be impossible much less supersonic flight and other extreme cases. We cannot model exactly what happens with turbulence and it obviously creates instability. How is that we are able to get planes to not fly apart?

The feedback mechanisms that we use to to stabilize planes are based on linear approximations. We do not understand what happens exactly but we know enough that we are able to fly at 4 times the speed of sound.

However, it should be noted that our understanding of turbulence like other nonperiodic systems has improved. For example, up until recently we could not explain how bees were able to get enough lift to fly. What they discovered in their modeling was that the wings created vortices (re: turbulence) that created low pressure areas that provided the needed lift.

The same is the case in transistors which are the backbone of modern electronics are are biased using linear approximations.

Then there is the processing of the empirical data that we have. The BEST analysis would not have been possible 3 years ago. Our ability to quantify our observations to be able to base our models off of has improved dramatically.

As you say, it's willful ignorance to say otherwise.

DarrinS

06-21-2012, 10:53 PM

You guys are missing the obvious with this computer simulation business. It's that you don't have enough data (the initial conditions) to adequately model the behavior of a chaotic dynamic system. Say you want to model something relatively simple, like a car rolling over sideways down a cliff. Unless you have a LOT of data about the car, the terrain, and the exact initial conditions of the rollover, you won't be able to predict its exact trajectory.

DarrinS

06-21-2012, 10:55 PM

The BEST analysis would not have been possible 3 years ago

laughable

MannyIsGod

06-21-2012, 11:06 PM

We have more than enough data for climate models. We have more than enough data for weather models which rely on far more variables than climate models.

Just a stupid and ignorant argument to make.

DarrinS

06-21-2012, 11:26 PM

We have more than enough data for climate models. We have more than enough data for weather models which rely on far more variables than climate models.

Just a stupid and ignorant argument to make.

So how far out can the best weather models predict? Why is that, Manny?

Thanks for helping me make my point. They are useful for short-term prediction -- don't get me wrong.

I disagree about adequate data for climate models. Spatial resolution sucks, except for sattelite data, but that hasn't been around for very long.

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 12:26 AM

Spatial resolution of climate models isn't high so what does it matter if spatial resolution of data sucks? Weather models don't break down due to lack of data, Darrin. They break up because the variables - which I've stated are much higher due to spatial and temporal resolution than climate models - multiply with each ongoing hour and the error grows. Climate models look at how an overall system behaves in the long term and don't need to worry about short term variability. Weather models on the other hand, handle nothing but short term variability.

More importantly, as computing power has grown, weather models too have gotten far more accurate. Look at the record of hurricane forecasts in the past 5 years compared to that of 15 years ago and its a huge jump.

So, I'll state once again. This argument is born out of ignorance. You disagree with availability of data needed for climate models but just why does your opinion carry weight on the subject. I don't even mean that as an insult. If I went to the doctor and told him I disagreed with his diagnosis it sure as hell would not carry much weight to his patient, would it?

FuzzyLumpkins

06-22-2012, 01:42 AM

laughable

It was a typo. I meant 30 years ie the discussion about 1988 models.

Wild Cobra

06-22-2012, 05:16 AM

Quote the post you are claiming to talk about.
No.

I have no need to prove to you anything. I waste too much of my time with you as it is. If you missed it, too bad. I will probably repeat the facts again in some future point, and you will probably still not understand.

Ask me if I care anymore.

Wild Cobra

06-22-2012, 05:18 AM

FuzzyLumpkins

06-22-2012, 06:32 AM

No.

I have no need to prove to you anything. I waste too much of my time with you as it is. If you missed it, too bad. I will probably repeat the facts again in some future point, and you will probably still not understand.

Ask me if I care anymore.

Intellectual cowardice.

You start off saying they didn't account for changing temperature. I then point out several studies that do just that and then you claim it doesn't account for long term changes. I explain how modeling works and you now claim some mythical facts.

Now you cannot come up with where to move the goalposts this time so you posture with bullshit like this.

If I have time later on I will quote you post by post just as I did when you postured like this when I called you on your lack of knowledge on capacitors.

It's good for a laugh. Last time i did it you put me on ignore. Run that white flag right up the pole.

Wild Cobra

06-22-2012, 06:49 AM

Intellectual cowardice.

You start off saying they didn't account for changing temperature. I then point out several studies that do just that and then you claim it doesn't account for long term changes. I explain how modeling works and you now claim some mythical facts.

See, you miss the meat of what's said. You favor to find any piddly ass reason you can to attack me, or fabricate reasons to attack me. It was clear that when I made the statement that "they didn't consider temperature changes of the ocean for CO2 changes," it was over the long term. All you did was bring all these seasonal studies in a lame attempt to discredit me.

Believe it or not, I understand what you say. The problem is, you are to simple minded to understand what I say. Worse yet, you are a cyber bully.

Why should i do anything beyond typing a few words out to you? Why should I waste my time looking anything up for you, when you are too pathetic?

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 08:24 AM

You don't understand shit. When I talk to people who understand, they don't say sea ice is an ice sheet. They don't say that global warming is caused by CO2 creating energy in the atmosphere. They understand Celsius and Kelvin are the same unit on different scales. They don't pull studies out that the authors themselves have admitted to have been wrong.

So no, WC, you don't understand. You can repeat it all you want but it won't make it anymore true.

DarrinS

06-22-2012, 09:29 AM

Spatial resolution of climate models isn't high so what does it matter if spatial resolution of data sucks? Weather models don't break down due to lack of data, Darrin. They break up because the variables -

Are not some of these variables DATA?

They break up because the variables - which I've stated are much higher due to spatial and temporal resolution than climate models - multiply with each ongoing hour and the error grows.

Exactly.

Climate models look at how an overall system behaves in the long term and don't need to worry about short term variability. Weather models on the other hand, handle nothing but short term variability.

Short-term variability affects the long-term behavior.

So, I'll state once again. This argument is born out of ignorance. You disagree with availability of data needed for climate models but just why does your opinion carry weight on the subject. I don't even mean that as an insult. If I went to the doctor and told him I disagreed with his diagnosis it sure as hell would not carry much weight to his patient, would it?

Because I've been modeling complex dynamic systems in the areas of thermo, heat transfer, fluid mechanics, structural dynamics, etc. for over 20 years. I think I my opinion does carry weight on the strengths and limitations of these types of computer models. Just as a statistician might not be an expert in climate science, he can weigh in on the use (or misuse) of a particular type of statistical analysis.

:nope

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 11:45 AM

Your second to last statement completely fucks up your last. You proved your ignorance right there.

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 11:47 AM

If you flip a coin and 7 of the first 10 flips are tails does it affect the long term result? No.

ElNono

06-22-2012, 12:05 PM

I agree with Darrin when it comes to statistical errors. The scope of climate models are simply huge. Even if you do have access to a lot of the data, you simply don't have the capacity right now to simulate everything fast enough (ie: faster than realtime, which you need to do if you're in the prediction business). You have to statistically approximate, which is fine short term, but the longer you move into the future, the higher the statistical error grows.

But this is also why computing power is critical. The statistical fudge factors in simulations normally come in two flavors: A) too much data (more than what you can process now) or B) not enough data. Increasing computing power is critical to both. In the A case, it allows for more real data processing, and less statistical fudging. In the B case, it allows to create avenues to gather, catalog and research the missing data.

Manny is certainly right that models in the past 20/30 years have improved dramatically, and IMO it's a no brainer one of the biggest factors for that is increased processing power.

Just my 2c

DarrinS

06-22-2012, 12:10 PM

If you flip a coin and 7 of the first 10 flips are tails does it affect the long term result? No.

:rolleyes

Yeah, good one. We all know chaotic dynamic systems only have 2 possible outcomes.

ElNono

06-22-2012, 12:11 PM

If you flip a coin and 7 of the first 10 flips are tails does it affect the long term result? No.

If you were to predict coin flips in the future and you hard-coded 70% probability of tails over heads, the error rate would undeniably grow larger the longer you move into the future, and thus affect the simulation and the result from it.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-22-2012, 03:47 PM

See, you miss the meat of what's said. You favor to find any piddly ass reason you can to attack me, or fabricate reasons to attack me. It was clear that when I made the statement that "they didn't consider temperature changes of the ocean for CO2 changes," it was over the long term. All you did was bring all these seasonal studies in a lame attempt to discredit me.

Believe it or not, I understand what you say. The problem is, you are to simple minded to understand what I say. Worse yet, you are a cyber bully.

Why should i do anything beyond typing a few words out to you? Why should I waste my time looking anything up for you, when you are too pathetic?

When all you do is speak in generalities that speak of nothing other than posturing it is not compelling. When I get home I will do a quote by quote review like I said. It's not very hard to show how you were full of shit.

You in no way demonstrate an understanding. As for specifics: partial derivatives, sampling and periodic functions are beyond your pea-brain. You took them holding a variable for a constant for a calculus operation to mean that the considered said variable constant, you think that sampling endpoints of decades of phenomenon is more telling --because you keep repeating it-- over sampling a period 4 times every year and just considering the variables as they come.

Notice how I gave specifics? Notice how I did not just posture that you didn't know but instead pointed out specifically?

All you have done is move your goal posts from they don't consider it to they do not consider it long term. As if they only run the models for a year. Prima facia it's stupid.

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 03:50 PM

If you were to predict coin flips in the future and you hard-coded 70% probability of tails over heads, the error rate would undeniably grow larger the longer you move into the future, and thus affect the simulation and the result from it.

No doubt, but Darrin's argument (at least THIS time) wasn't that the model itself was wrong but rather that their inability to resolve short term variability affected the long term. There's nothing correct about that statement.

Ignoring the short term variability is quite easy and not a problem with climate models because you're not trying to forecast the temp in a particular location but rather the amount of energy in the earth. On the simplest level, you can model that in fucking excel and come out with reasonably accurate results.

Global Climate Models today are much more complicated beasts and their output their output should be reviewed very skeptically (in the actual sense of the word - not dismissed out of hand but rather taken with a grain or two of salt) but they are trying to make predictions at the local and regional level more than simpler climate models. I've never once made an argument that we can accurately predict the outcome of AGW at any one place on the globe (this is the current aim of GCMs) but when people dismiss climate models and refer to the models that forecast global temperature increase and a lack of data they are typically speaking out of complete ignorance.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-22-2012, 03:52 PM

If you were to predict coin flips in the future and you hard-coded 70% probability of tails over heads, the error rate would undeniably grow larger the longer you move into the future, and thus affect the simulation and the result from it.

The error frames they give are based off of the terminations of projections are defined. All you are doing is speaking from generalities. 70% is a made up number and one thing that is clear is that over time those error ranges have shrank.

If the error estimates are wrong then feel free to point to it but all I see is incredulity versus scientists that are giving clear ranges where expected values can fall.

If they are not compounding the probabilities correctly thats kinda the point of peer-review and i am sure the Heritage Foundation has people working to double check it.

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 03:52 PM

:rolleyes

Yeah, good one. We all know chaotic dynamic systems only have 2 possible outcomes.

Its an analogy fool. The point was that short term variability does not affect the long term outcome.

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 03:54 PM

I agree with Darrin when it comes to statistical errors. The scope of climate models are simply huge. Even if you do have access to a lot of the data, you simply don't have the capacity right now to simulate everything fast enough (ie: faster than realtime, which you need to do if you're in the prediction business). You have to statistically approximate, which is fine short term, but the longer you move into the future, the higher the statistical error grows.

As I stated above, GCMs that try to make predictions on a regional or local level are definitely deserving of this type of criticism. Models that are looking at the global energy budget are really not.

But this is also why computing power is critical. The statistical fudge factors in simulations normally come in two flavors: A) too much data (more than what you can process now) or B) not enough data. Increasing computing power is critical to both. In the A case, it allows for more real data processing, and less statistical fudging. In the B case, it allows to create avenues to gather, catalog and research the missing data.

Manny is certainly right that models in the past 20/30 years have improved dramatically, and IMO it's a no brainer one of the biggest factors for that is increased processing power.

Just my 2c

:tu

FuzzyLumpkins

06-22-2012, 03:55 PM

Darrin is talking out of his ass. Non-periodic phenomenon can have any number of outputs just as any other arbitrary phenomenon. Him being exclusionary is just posturing.

Force them to talk of specifics and actually apply these principles they claim to espouse. When you do it rings very hollow.

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 04:12 PM

Darrin has never given specifics on shit so I don't expect him to start anytime soon unless he finds a youtube.

ElNono

06-22-2012, 04:16 PM

No doubt, but Darrin's argument (at least THIS time) wasn't that the model itself was wrong but rather that their inability to resolve short term variability affected the long term. There's nothing correct about that statement.

The error frames they give are based off of the terminations of projections are defined. All you are doing is speaking from generalities. 70% is a made up number and one thing that is clear is that over time those error ranges have shrank.

I was given a general example, thus you get a general breakdown.

This isn't rocket science. If you build a model where one component is "coin flip" and you define "coin flip" = 70% tails (Manny's example, not mine), then it's a model with a statistically crappy component that when you use it to simulate the entire model over time will continue to creep in error feedback into the main model. The longer you simulate, the bigger the error creep, which translates into a less realistic simulation.

If you instead define "coin flip" as a physical calculation including the properties of the coin (mass, size, shape, features), the given force when tossed (vector, impulse) of the coin at a given time, the air pressure, the features of where the coin lands, etc, etc, etc and gather the value from that, then you'll likely have a much better simulation and approximation of that variable, because you know a whole lot more about the conditions of the coin flip. That translates into less statistical error for the individual component and less error creep onto the main model.

Unfortunately, there's simply not enough processing power to go with minutiae on every component. Now, some lend themselves better to approximation, but others unfortunately do not. And if you want to simulate, you're going to have to make compromises into the accuracy in order to get a simulation going. This doesn't apply to just climate model, you can see the same effect on a plethora of other fields. For example, ray tracing on computers have had to deal with the limits of computing for the same exact reason.

Now, there's no doubt that increased processing power opens the door for better processing, better simulation and obviously better results.

Wild Cobra

06-22-2012, 04:26 PM

You don't understand shit. When I talk to people who understand, they don't say sea ice is an ice sheet.

I call it what theuy call it. Do prominent universities call it sea ice or not?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/)

I see "Sea Ice" in the title. Don't you?

They don't say that global warming is caused by CO2 creating energy in the atmosphere.

Where did I say the energy is created?

That's either one of the many incorrectly paraphrased things you guys do because you cannot debate me legitimately, or it was a one time mistake I had since corrected.

Why do you use such unethical tactics?

that will really get you far to be so unethical in future career choices.

They understand Celsius and Kelvin are the same unit on different scales.

And you think I don't?

No wonder you cannot relate. No matter what I say, you do not understand my words.

Where have I ever indicated otherwise? I make the distinction that the scales have to be treated if multiplied.

That's because C = K -273.15.

If I interchange C and K in mathematics using the temperature, will my results be the same?

Hell no. The formula must be tailored for one unit or the other.

You can repeat it all you want but it won't make it anymore true.

Yet you have not shown me to be wrong yet.

Your problem is the same as FuzzNutz. You twist what I say to be something incorrect, just because you fail to understand my intent. Doesn't a wise person ask for clarification rather than accuse and attack?

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 04:26 PM

:lol that wasn't my example at all, EN.

My initial post was that climate models don't need to resolve the short term in order to get an accurate picture of the long term. Darrin countered with saying that short term variability affects the long term. It does not. Thats why I gave the coin example. I never said anything about programming a model with an incorrect behavior.

A model that is programmed to generate a 0 or 1 at random will generate those numbers equally in the long run regardless of which number is at a higher rate through 30 iterations. THAT was my point. Not that programing it to prefer 0 or 1 would not matter.

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 04:28 PM

I call it what theuy call it. Do prominent universities call it sea ice or not?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/)

I see "Sea Ice" in the title. Don't you?

Where did I say the energy is created?

That's either one of the many incorrectly paraphrased things you guys do because you cannot debate me legitimately, or it was a one time mistake I had since corrected.

Why do you use such unethical tactics?

that will really get you far to be so unethical in future career choices.

And you think I don't?

No wonder you cannot relate. No matter what I say, you do not understand my words.

Where have I ever indicated otherwise? I make the distinction that the scales have to be treated if multiplied.

That's because C = K -273.15.

If I interchange C and K in mathematics using the temperature, will my results be the same?

Hell no. The formula must be tailored for one unit or the other.

Yet you have not shown me to be wrong yet.

Your problem is the same as FuzzNutz. You twist what I say to be something incorrect, just because you fail to understand my intent. Doesn't a wise person ask for clarification rather than accuse and attack?

Sure, no one has ever shown you to be wrong.

Wild Cobra

06-22-2012, 04:29 PM

Manny is certainly right that models in the past 20/30 years have improved dramatically, and IMO it's a no brainer one of the biggest factors for that is increased processing power.

Just my 2c
But you still have to have good and complete data.

garbage in - garbage out.

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 04:31 PM

Tell me again what you call sea ice, WC?

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5667479&postcount=2003

FuzzyLumpkins

06-22-2012, 04:33 PM

I was given a general example, thus you get a general breakdown.

This isn't rocket science. If you build a model where one component is "coin flip" and you define "coin flip" = 70% tails (Manny's example, not mine), then it's a model with a statistically crappy component that when you use it to simulate the entire model over time will continue to creep in error feedback into the main model. The longer you simulate, the bigger the error creep, which translates into a less realistic simulation.

If you instead define "coin flip" as a physical calculation including the properties of the coin (mass, size, shape, features), the given force when tossed (vector, impulse) of the coin at a given time, the air pressure, the features of where the coin lands, etc, etc, etc and gather the value from that, then you'll likely have a much better simulation and approximation of that variable, because you know a whole lot more about the conditions of the coin flip. That translates into less statistical error for the individual component and less error creep onto the main model.

Unfortunately, there's simply not enough processing power to go with minutiae on every component. Now, some lend themselves better to approximation, but others unfortunately do not. And if you want to simulate, you're going to have to make compromises into the accuracy in order to get a simulation going. This doesn't apply to just climate model, you can see the same effect on a plethora of other fields. For example, ray tracing on computers have had to deal with the limits of computing for the same exact reason.

Now, there's no doubt that increased processing power opens the door for better processing, better simulation and obviously better results.

I probably should have edited that post for vehemence.

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 04:33 PM

LOL tests

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4822189&postcount=729

FuzzyLumpkins

06-22-2012, 04:37 PM

But you still have to have good and complete data.

garbage in - garbage out.

What empirical observations are wrong?

Perhaps you could give a specific example?

You do not even know what the formulas are. You didn't think that they considered temperature. You thought they viewed temperature as a constant until I had to beat your head with studies that showed they didn't. But here you are talking about the input values.

Also, you are acting like aspie. There is an element of degree here. There is completely incorrect and then there is too general. An example of this would be to sample something every 40 years and to sample things every season. Which one paints a more clear picture do you think?

Oh wait, you are the one that goes 100 years and a solubility chart.

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 04:37 PM

LOL this isn't WC but its a classic none the less.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4913933&postcount=874

Wild Cobra

06-22-2012, 04:38 PM

Tell me again what you call sea ice, WC?

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5667479&postcount=2003
I corrected myself after that.

Again, you are being unethical. I make a mistake and corrected it, but you take the low road.

Attack... Attack... Attack...

Grow up.

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 04:40 PM

You make a lot of mistakes for someone that understands.

FuzzyLumpkins

06-22-2012, 04:42 PM

You twist what I say to be something incorrect, just because you fail to understand my intent. Doesn't a wise person ask for clarification rather than accuse and attack?

Your intent is obvious: to confirm your bias at all costs. You can claim intent but what is important is what you actually claim. That you do not stand by what you claim but instead move the goalposts speaks volumes.

And your martyr routine falls on deaf ears. The only one that has ever somewhat defended you was winehole and even that was more aobut him not liking me than it was you having any merit.

You are stupid and as long as you do stupid things, you are going to get called on it. Cry all you like.

Wild Cobra

06-22-2012, 04:45 PM

You make a lot of mistakes for someone that understands.
Yes, I make a lot of mistakes. My terminology is wrong more than I l;ike. Does that mean I don't understand? No!

I have admitted long ago, and more than a few times that I get terminology wrong at times.

Now I go back to this. Do you want an honest debate, or do you just want to be a cyber bully like FuzzNutz? Do you want to be childish and use simple mistakes as a reason to unethically shut someone down, or do you want to have some honor?

TeyshaBlue

06-22-2012, 04:52 PM

Wait a second. I don't understand the terminology, but I totally understand what I'm talking about?

TeyshaBlue

06-22-2012, 04:53 PM

That means I'm a fucking super-hyper-genius!

Wild Cobra

06-22-2012, 04:57 PM

Wait a second. I don't understand the terminology, but I totally understand what I'm talking about?

That means I'm a fucking super-hyper-genius!
This just shows you are being a troll.

ElNono

06-22-2012, 05:00 PM

:lol that wasn't my example at all, EN.

My bad, then :tu

ElNono

06-22-2012, 05:01 PM

But you still have to have good and complete data.

Not in all cases, no.

ElNono

06-22-2012, 05:02 PM

Wild Cobra

06-22-2012, 05:10 PM

Not in all cases, no.
I guess that depends on the specific data type and why it isn't complete.

Would you trust those in charge of data sites, that have a clear agenda, of selectively reducing the number of data sites, at their whim?

If I use statistics for levels of certainty, am I being honest if I have purposely chosen what data would and would not be included?

This is just two of the things the Climate science community has been caught doing to support their agenda.

Now another thing I like to point out every now and then.

Why does the IPCC only include "direct" solar forcing in their radiative forcing assessments? What about the feedback? Why can I not find any material that actually takes into account the complete solar forcing effects?

ElNono

06-22-2012, 05:17 PM

Would you trust those in charge of data sites, that have a clear agenda, of selectively reducing the number of data sites, at their whim?

I don't know enough of those "data sites" or their "agenda" to really answer that.

That said, you've a very perceptible bias and overall ignorance of what's being discussed, so you'll probably be at the very bottom of whom I ask.

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 05:18 PM

My bad, then :tu

For the record I agree with everything you post. I personally find it very hard to see things like the parameterization of clouds in GCMs and say they are without a reasonable degree of error. I definitely can't wait for the added computer power that will bring that in better. There's obviously a large degree in error of modeling the climate which is why the IPCC gives a wide range.

The problem is when talking to people like those in this thread who look at that margin of error and decide that climate models then have no use. Couldn't be further from the truth.

Wild Cobra

06-22-2012, 05:23 PM

The problem is when talking to people like those in this thread who look at that margin of error and decide that climate models then have no use. Couldn't be further from the truth.
I understand why the margin of error is like it is. I just don't trust scientific peer reviewed papers done in a closer peer review process, especially with such a politically motivated topic. Wouldn't these results be believable if the more skeptical members of the science community reviewed them as well?

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 05:26 PM

You don't understand shit, WC.

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 05:27 PM

I wonder if Darrin still wants to trust HadCRUT now that they've updated their dataset?

I doubt it.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4957007&postcount=1022

Wild Cobra

06-22-2012, 05:33 PM

You don't understand shit, WC.
Yes, I understand.

You aren't willing to go there. If scientists not trained in the church of AGW were to point out fallacies, the papers would never make it through the peer review process. that's why it's a closed process. Only those who already believe the dogma are allowed to participate.

ElNono

06-22-2012, 05:34 PM

The problem is when talking to people like those in this thread who look at that margin of error and decide that climate models then have no use. Couldn't be further from the truth.

I don't have a problem with good/bad models for academic purposes. Building relatively successful models take a lot of iterations through error prone ones.

I simply don't think world-wide decisions should be made at this time over simulations with ample error margins. A five day weather forecast is rarely anywhere near 50% right. A 5-10 year forecast... other than telling me it's going to be hot in the summer and cold in the winter, there's not much more I can really buy from it (again, at this time).

But the onus should certainly be on improving the models, the simulations, until perhaps at some point we'll have much less error and a much better idea of what we're looking at, and you can convince skeptics like me that you really have a pretty complete and accurate model. We've already seen progress like that during the last 20/30 years. Hopefully we can keep improving on that.

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 05:41 PM

Yes, I understand.

You aren't willing to go there. If scientists not trained in the church of AGW were to point out fallacies, the papers would never make it through the peer review process. that's why it's a closed process. Only those who already believe the dogma are allowed to participate.

I wonder if Darrin still wants to trust HadCRUT now that they've updated their dataset?

I doubt it.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4957007&postcount=1022

FuzzyLumpkins

06-22-2012, 08:01 PM

Why does the IPCC only include "direct" solar forcing in their radiative forcing assessments? What about the feedback? Why can I not find any material that actually takes into account the complete solar forcing effects?

Probably the same reason why you could not find anything that stated scientists considered temperature in regards to the oceans CO2 flux. It took me about 4 words into google and 4 clicks to find it.

You call me a bully however when you display over and over again your lack of cognitive abilities at what point does that demonstrate that you lack even average intelligence? If there are indeed stupid people in the world how do you point one out? Is it wrong to call a duck a duck?

The truth no matter how repugnant is still the truth.

DarrinS

06-22-2012, 08:18 PM

I wonder if Darrin still wants to trust HadCRUT now that they've updated their dataset?

I doubt it.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4957007&postcount=1022

Why? Did they massage it (yet again) such that it matches GISS? That wouldn't surprise me.

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 11:21 PM

They added more data to it. It comes out warmer as they added more data in the northern latitudes where warming is greatest. That should cause you to dismiss it out of hand. :tu

MannyIsGod

06-22-2012, 11:23 PM

Whats really interesting is that the main reason the NASA dataset is hotter is because it includes areas that HADCRUT4 does not. When you look at the common areas, HADCRUT4 acrually runs substantially warmer. HADCRUT3 did as well, but its increased.

MannyIsGod

06-30-2012, 02:15 PM

http://denialdepot.blogspot.co.uk/

Holy shit. :lmao

Best site on the internet.

:lol

Sidebar: When and When Not to Trust Data
DO trust data when it is promoted by a trusted figure such as Laird Monckton, Dr Professor Ian Plimer, or anyone with Solar based climate theory.
DONT trust data if it toes an IPCC line. We know the IPCC is always wrong so if data is compatible with man-made global warming in any way, it must be political data with an agenda and cannot be trusted.
DONT trust nature. Nature itself will sometimes conspire with the alarmists and fabricate political data about itself. Even raw data can lie. For example some glaciers are in decline even though we should be entering an ice age. I have my suspicions that if nature could vote it would vote Obama.
DO trust data if it contradicts the IPCC. Temperature data that exhibit a lack of warming can automatically be trusted and should be used immediately.
NEVER trust supposed copies of Birth Certificates issued from Hawaii.

boutons_deux

07-01-2012, 08:18 PM

Wild Cobra

07-02-2012, 02:08 AM

We need a new thread title...

"Why I think Alternet is a little worse than Pseudoscience."

MannyIsGod

07-02-2012, 03:44 AM

As Farms Bite the Dust, "Megadrought" May Be the New Normal in the Southwest

Placitas, New Mexico feels like a front-row seat to the apocalypse.

Intuitive as the connection may seem, we don't know if the current drought is a consequence of global warming, deBuys writes. Periodic, decades-long droughts have been relatively common in the last few thousand years, according to analysis of dried lake beds. Most of the area's famously collapsed civilizations--Chaco Canyon, Mesa Verde, the Galisteo pueblos--are thought to have died out for lack of water in these extended dry periods, which deBuys calls "megadroughts."

By contrast, the last century's human population growth in the American Southwest occurred during a relatively wet period in the climactic record. We were due for another megadrought sooner or later, deBuys writes, which could be expected to dramatically alter human settlement patterns in the area. While this current heat may not be caused by global warming, he writes, climate change could nonetheless trigger the next megadrought.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/156100

If El Nino sets in this winter we'll likely get much more precipitation than we have the past two due to La Nina. Just 2 years ago during the 2010 El Nino New Mexico experienced a very wet winter and subsequent green Summer. That was my first Summer here and it was remarkably green.

La Nina kicks this part of the country in the nuts when it comes to drought conditions.

That being said, its likely the past few summer heat waves have been enhanced by AGW. In turn, that of course exacerbates the droughts that have occurred. The statistical anomalies these droughts represent lead me to believes that while they would have occurred without AGW it has likely made them more severe to an extent.

DarrinS

07-02-2012, 10:59 AM

Lol -- it begins

i0wNbsy5h4A

Wild Cobra

07-02-2012, 01:23 PM

I wonder how much the urban heat island effect has on this unusual heat he speaks of? It could easily add a few degrees by itself.

MannyIsGod

07-02-2012, 01:39 PM

Lol -- it begins

i0wNbsy5h4A

He's likely right. I'm not ready to say with absolute certainty, but there have been several studies done in the past couple of years that use various statistical methods to figure out how much if anything AGW has to do with them. They all say that its played a role in enhancement and really it would make sense that is the case. Thats pretty much exactly what the meteorologist on that video was saying.

There are too many statistical anomalies to simply discount.

MannyIsGod

07-02-2012, 01:39 PM

I wonder how much the urban heat island effect has on this unusual heat he speaks of? It could easily add a few degrees by itself.

Cities are not new. The UHI effect didn't pop up a few years ago.

Wild Cobra

07-02-2012, 01:53 PM

Cities are not new. The UHI effect didn't pop up a few years ago.
I agree, but population densities keep increasing. Energy usage keeps increasing. Natural landscape keep diminishing.

If someone does attempt to assign a value, these factors should not be ignored.

DarrinS

07-02-2012, 01:58 PM

The beauty of AGW is that almost anything can be blamed on it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/colorados-table-was-set-for-monster-fire/2012/07/01/gJQAVa6cGW_story_1.html

MannyIsGod

07-02-2012, 02:42 PM

I agree, but population densities keep increasing. Energy usage keeps increasing. Natural landscape keep diminishing.

If someone does attempt to assign a value, these factors should not be ignored.

Quantify it or GTFO IMO

MannyIsGod

07-02-2012, 02:43 PM

The beauty of AGW is that almost anything can be blamed on it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/colorados-table-was-set-for-monster-fire/2012/07/01/gJQAVa6cGW_story_1.html

The beauty of your lack of logic is that your arguments never actually have to make sense.

MannyIsGod

07-02-2012, 02:44 PM

Because yeah, talking about the link of hotter dryer weather to AGW is a stretch.

SnakeBoy

07-02-2012, 02:56 PM

Because yeah, talking about the link of hotter dryer weather to AGW is a stretch.

When we have cooler wetter weather Darrin or WC will start a thread calling it proof agw theory is wrong and you will call him an idiot.

Climate theory and localized weather are apples and oranges. Trying to link the two is dumb. It's pretty stupid for that weatherman to claim the temp would have been 1-2 degrees cooler without global warming when he doesn't have enough of a La Nina/El Nino record or an accurate enough temperature record to make that claim.

TeyshaBlue

07-02-2012, 03:00 PM

I wonder how much the urban heat island effect has on this unusual heat he speaks of? It could easily add a few degrees by itself.

lol...urban heat island effects are 100% man-made.:lol

MannyIsGod

07-02-2012, 03:41 PM

When we have cooler wetter weather Darrin or WC will start a thread calling it proof agw theory is wrong and you will call him an idiot.

Climate theory and localized weather are apples and oranges. Trying to link the two is dumb. It's pretty stupid for that weatherman to claim the temp would have been 1-2 degrees cooler without global warming when he doesn't have enough of a La Nina/El Nino record or an accurate enough temperature record to make that claim.

Actually, that's fairly incorrect. Climate is the long term pattern, but to say that there is no link between climate and weather is quite perplexing. Do you believe the weather in a place like Phoenix has anything to do with its arid climate?

As it applies to AGW, the change in climate will absolutely affect weather.

As for what the meteorologist said, there are many pieces of supporting evidence. For starters, the absolute increase in the pace of record setting days is remarkable. If you want to say that this is a statistical anomaly due to better data gathering then you have to explain why this is only happening on the hotter side of the spectrum and why we're not seeing the same increase in all time cold?

This press release for this article that appeared in Nature earlier this year made the rounds:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html

Weather records due to climate change: a game with loaded dice

03/25/2012 - The past decade has been one of unprecedented weather extremes. Scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany argue that the high incidence of extremes is not merely accidental. From the many single events a pattern emerges. At least for extreme rainfall and heat waves the link with human-caused global warming is clear, the scientists show in a new analysis of scientific evidence in the journal Nature Climate Change. Less clear is the link between warming and storms, despite the observed increase in the intensity of hurricanes.

Flooded road after heavy rains in the US. Photo: thinkstock

In 2011 alone, the US was hit by 14 extreme weather events which caused damages exceeding one billion dollars each – in several states the months of January to October were the wettest ever recorded. Japan also registered record rainfalls, while the Yangtze river basin in China suffered a record drought. Similar record-breaking events occurred also in previous years. In 2010, Western Russia experienced the hottest summer in centuries, while in Pakistan and Australia record-breaking amounts of rain fell. 2003 saw Europe´s hottest summer in at least half a millennium. And in 2002, the weather station of Zinnwald-Georgenfeld measured more rain in one day than ever before recorded anywhere in Germany – what followed was the worst flooding of the Elbe river for centuries.

"A question of probabilities"

“The question is whether these weather extremes are coincidental or a result of climate change,” says Dim Coumou, lead author of the article. “Global warming can generally not be proven to cause individual extreme events – but in the sum of events the link to climate change becomes clear.” This is what his analysis of data and published studies shows. “It is not a question of yes or no, but a question of probabilities,” Coumou explains. The recent high incidence of weather records is no longer normal, he says.

“It´s like a game with loaded dice,” says Coumou. “A six can appear every now and then, and you never know when it happens. But now it appears much more often, because we have changed the dice.” The past week illustrates this: between March 13th and 19th alone, historical heat records were exceeded in more than a thousand places in North America.

Three pillars: basic physics, statistical analysis and computer simulations

The scientists base their analysis on three pillars: basic physics, statistical analysis and computer simulations. Elementary physical principles already suggest that a warming of the atmosphere leads to more extremes. For example, warm air can hold more moisture until it rains out. Secondly, clear statistical trends can be found in temperature and precipitation data, the scientists explain. And thirdly, detailed computer simulations also confirm the relation between warming and records in both temperature and precipitation.

With warmer ocean temperatures, tropical storms – called typhoons or hurricanes, depending on the region – should increase in intensity but not in number, according to the current state of knowledge. In the past decade, several record-breaking storms occurred, for example hurricane Wilma in 2004. But the dependencies are complex and not yet fully understood. The observed strong increase in the intensity of tropical storms in the North Atlantic between 1980 and 2005, for example, could be caused not just by surface warming but by a cooling of the upper atmosphere. Furthermore, there are questions about the precision and reliability of historic storm data.

Overall, cold extremes decrease with global warming, the scientists found. But this does not compensate for the increase in heat extremes.

Climatic warming can turn an extreme event into a record-breaking event

“Single weather extremes are often related to regional processes, like a blocking high pressure system or natural phenomena like El Niño,“ says Stefan Rahmstorf, co-author of the article and chair of the Earth System Analysis department at PIK. “These are complex processes that we are investigating further. But now these processes unfold against the background of climatic warming. That can turn an extreme event into a record-breaking event.”

Article: Coumou, D., Rahmstorf, S. (2012): A Decade of Weather Extremes. Nature Climate Change [DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1452]

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/wetterrekorde-als-folge-des-klimawandels-ein-spiel-mit-gezinkten-wurfeln

I'm still VERY leery connection between AGW and tropic activity but the statistical data on extreme heat events is a lot more informative.

I'll grant you that the meteorologist can obviously not make any clear statement with certainty regarding any particular record on any particular day and say that AGW made that temp worse, but the overall trend with these extreme heat events is painting a pretty clear picture.