Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[DarrinS]

We've talked about that period before Darrin. Several times.

You're cute little animated gif doesn't show that period.

That period of cooling is about as long as your animation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=195

Do the running averages take into consideration all of the data points? Are you familiar with bounded convolutions or the reasoning behind using them? I will give you a hint: when you do a rolling average on every point, every data point is weighted equally.

Oh and by all means please point to the part of your blog that gives a basis for not using a bounded convolution like they do to filter noise.

Right off the bat the statement from the blog:

The various black lines are the actual data! The red-line is a 10-year running mean smoother! I will call the black data the real data, and I will call the smoothed data the fictional data. Mann used a “low pass filter” different than the running mean to produce his fictional data, but a smoother is a smoother and what I’m about to say changes not one whit depending on what smoother you use.

Is wrong. A low pass filter does not behave in this manner. A low pass filter excludes particular data points a running average does not. if your point is that BEST is using a low pass filter approach you are flat ass wrong.

This statement is also patently false:

Now I’m going to tell you the great truth of time series analysis. Ready? Unless the data is measured with error, you never, ever, for no reason, under no threat, SMOOTH the series! And if for some bizarre reason you do smooth it, you absolutely on pain of death do NOT use the smoothed series as input for other analyses!

Avionic controls is one application that you use this for as they also take rolling averages off of sensors and feed them into the control system. That is just off the top of my head.

There is no basis given for this statement

If, in a moment of insanity, you do smooth time series data and you do use it as input to other analyses, you dramatically increase the probability of fooling yourself! This is because smoothing induces spurious signals—signals that look real to other analytical methods. No matter what you will be too certain of your final results! Mann et al. first dramatically smoothed their series, then analyzed them separately. Regardless of whether their thesis is true—whether there really is a dramatic increase in temperature lately—it is guaranteed that they are now too certain of their conclusion.

Can you explain how when dealing with noisy systems, using convolutions of this nature reduces accuracy? He does not.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh and Briggs is a contractor for The Heartlnad Ins ute. Who would have thunk it? Do you get anything not form the, the Guardian, WUWT, or Koch?

i have to be honest I sometimes wonder if you are a shill for one of them.

[MannyIsGod]

You're cute little animated gif doesn't show that period.

That period of cooling is about as long as your animation.

Have I not provided you with reasoning on that period on several occasions prior to this that is backed up by scientific literature?

Yes or no?

The graph is meant to show exactly how you cherry pick whatever suits the case you are trying to make. Darrin, you are absolutely the king cherry picker on this forum on this subject.

[MannyIsGod]

On the subject of 1940-1970

What did was the trend for night time temperature's during that time frame? Up, or down? Why?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i should qualify my statements too. A low pass filter does not exclude data points necessarily. Instead it attenuates them by definition.

A rolling average sums the previous x points and then divides them by x. A lowpass filter is the parrallel combination of circuit elements. To just cut to the chase what it does to the signal is a function of exponential or through euhler's equations, sinusoids.

a rolling average is [x+(x+1)+....+(x+n)]/n

versus f=A(1-exp(-t/rc))

They are not the same thing and that Briggs guy is just trying to dazzle people without training with bull .

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy Wuzzy... such a fool. What am i going to do with you? So tempted to put you on IGNORE so I don't have to see you misconstrued words.

So you choose not to address a thing that i say. i did ask for clarification. i asked where you derived the numbers from.

Which numbers? The values I assigned to the ocean and atmosphere, or something else? Then on some of the values I used, do you know the definition of a two letter word called "IF?"

Did you attempt to justify or derive them? nope you make a broad statement saying that i never asked for clarification when what I asked was where you got the numbers from.

Giving you some of your own medicine. What's wrong, can't take it?

of course there are other factors thats why I made it a point to say that i would even take average ocean salinity and ph as a baseline to begin with. Whats obvious is you have no idea how what the function for the equilibrium constant for CO2 solubility is and you pulled those numbers from out of your ass or from a mailer.

No mailer involve. It really pisses me off that you say such things. This is one reason why you are so ing stupid. You assume so much. Your assumptions are so far off from the truth that it's pitiful.

I wonder what it's like Being John Fuzzy Malkovich.

You claim that i make assumptions but you never ever actually address what i say beyond claiming that what I say are assumptions.

Bull . I have told you several times how your assumptions are wrong. Your head is too ing hard to relate outside you preconceived notions.

What is the solubility equation and can you justify the numbers you cited?

Look it up yourself. While you're at it, look up the Revelle factor. Yes I know what that is. It has a great effect on short term large increases, but not as much as you seem to hold on to.

As for the BEST graph you just ignore the point of the paper. It was correct in that it came from BEST. It was an analysis of raw data adjusted for decadal variations. Pulling the raw data from the study and making claims off of it as to what BEST actually does is horse and even your dumb ass should recognize that.

Again, since you ignored my words the first time...

I posted that to show that Darrin was correct in in his past statement. That was all I posted that for. Why are you reading more into it than that?

As for the final, its accepted what? its a graph of the last several samples of hundreds of data points. Here they are in entirety:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal...tok/co2nat.txt

Sure enough its cherry picked. This is what the graph looks like when you take the data points back the full 500k years:

Here you go again. You assume I had a mailer, you assume I didn't already have that information.

Guess what jerkoff. I made that graph from that data. I have the complete data. I made that graph almost two years ago for a different discussion. I simply pulled it back out of Photobucket, where it is sitting. I am the one who edited it that long time back putting the link information of the data I used. The primary reason i only showed the last 12,000 years was the rest was TMI for the purpose. When you scrunch so much more data on a graph, you can't distinguish which is first. CO2 or temperature. Try seeing a clear correlation on the idiotic graph you posted. You cant.

Also if you read the various literature on the core taking there were issues with contamination on the edges so its little surprise that your oil lobby mailer would choose to only display the data from the edges.

You're making things up.

And you have the audacity to call me a liar?

Absolutely.

I didn't ask you to regurgitate someone elses numbers. Whats the formula used to determine the equilibrium point. And pulling other people's work and not citing it is pretty ty.

The specific formula doesn't matter. I'm not going for three significant digit accuracy. The effects of what I say are real, and close to proportional until the Revelle factor comes in play.

Which numbers are you talking about?

Which work not cited are you talking about?

When I say that you are stupid, i point to specific things that you do not understand. All you are doing here is throwing out numbers from other people's works doing absolutely nothing to describe how those numbers are reached and then posturing. Thats weak ass .

You claim I'm wrong, but you don't back it up. Please specify. Talk about weak , that is very weak to me. Are you afraid that when you tell me specifically what is wrong, that I will prove you wrong? You think you're smart, making so generalized accusations that I can only guess at what to defend.

Right off the bat your little percentages nonsense assume that the system is linear. i know for a fact that soluble gas systems are not linear and its also obvious that there will be feedback because the change is not ph neutral.

Duh...

No Sherlock...

You assume I don't know that.

Again, I am not shooting for high accuracy, but to illustrate cause an effect. I'm trying to keep it simple so others can follow, but you do nothing but muddy the waters.

As for the PH change, over time and the Thermohaline circulation, it is virtually untouched by the waters sinking more CO2 in the polar regions.

Your napkin math is cute and all but justify the numbers.

Specifically this

Explained in my posting with the numbers. It was an illustration only. Not meant to be accurate.

i will even acknowledge a simplification assuming averaged ocean pH and salinity. Hope you photobucketed or bookmarked that mailer too.

Again, no mailer... How do you have any friend in life when you are constantly accusing people falsely?

How many boyfriends have you lost over and over?

You wow nobody with your pseudoscience bull .

It's not my fault that you cannot follow along with my intent. You keep reading more into them than i cl;aim, you keep finding any little thing you can twist and nitpick.

You are a ing loser.

[MannyIsGod]

[Wild Cobra]

Um, if we didn't add any carbon to the system then the ocean would still be in balance.

Yes it would. Unless some other variable changes, like temperature. It just dawned on me. Are you and Fizzy thinking I am simple speaking of ionic balance of the carbon forms in water? I am primarily speaking of the balance between the atmosphere and forms of carbon in the ocean. That is why I keep using the term partial Pressure, also known as Fugacity.

Talk about some incredibly ty understanding of how the carbon cycle works, but what is worse is your math.

Like I explained to Fuzzy, I was going for a simple illustrative example. pH isn't linear, but ratios remain close to linear between atmospheric CO2 and dissolved CO2 as the partial pressure changes. At least until the Revelle factor has an effect.

The reason the ocean has a lower concentration of the total CO2 today is not because its absorbing less but because we're dumping it directly into the atmosphere!!!!!

Yes, partially. It takes time to equalize to balance. Still, at most, we put in about 8 GtC of carbon annually in the atmosphere at most, and less in the past annually. This is less than 4% added to natural sourcing. I stand by my conviction that it is not being absorbed as rapidly in the ocean as it should because the ocean is warming. I stand by my conviction that is we never added a drop of CO2 in the atmosphere, we would still have above 370 ppm in the atmosphere today.

Have you seen solubility graphs of CO2 vs. salinity and temperature?



Now for points of illustration... These numbers may be slightly off...

Fuzzy... Are you listening... this is for simplification and illustration...

The equatorial waters probably averages around 23C. The polar waters probably average about 4 C. The surface waters in the polar regions do the sinking, and the equatorial waters do the sourcing. This is because of surface temperate. At 23C, the approximate change of absorption is 0.26% per 0.1C. The approximate change for around 4C is about 0.41% per 0.1C. This is a very huge number as the volume of the ocean turns over. With a total of more than 39,000 GtC of carbon in the ocean, a change of 0.1 C in both the polar and equatorial regions would represent a new balance of 260 GtC less in the ocean. The actual would be difficult to determine as there are not simple two or three temperature areas to deal with. Still, how much warmer is the arctic and antarctic waters today than in the past? Isn't it well over 0.5C more? I don't recall the number and don't feel like looking it up.

I'll bet that is we could suddenly stop all man-made CO2, that in future years, we would still see rising CO2 in the atmosphere. With warning of the ocean, it simply cannot retain the same levels of CO2 as in the past, relative to the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Wild Cobra]

I just had a thought for you guys to ponder over.

If, as you claim, the ac ulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is because of anthropogenic addition, then why is it a near linear addition over several decades when industrialization is closer to exponential?

Could the answer to this question be because the ocean flows at a near linear rate and that we are seeing the effects of the 0.18% increase in solar energy from 1700 to 1950?

[Wild Cobra]

Oh and Briggs is a contractor for The Heartlnad Ins ute. Who would have thunk it? Do you get anything not form the, the Guardian, WUWT, or Koch?

i have to be honest I sometimes wonder if you are a shill for one of them.

If you want to dismiss someone because of assumed agenda, as if they are statistical outliers, then you have to also dismiss the work of Mann, Hansen, Schmidt, etc.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you want to dismiss someone because of assumed agenda, as if they are statistical outliers, then you have to also dismiss the work of Mann, Hansen, Schmidt, etc.

I see you didn't touch the stuff about signal analysis. i prefer to evaluate people on a case by case basis. You're the one that likes grouping them together and advocating eugenics on them or are afraid to get medical care from them. Start making ciaims based off of those guys and I will care. I don't cite them.

As for your giant monstrosity of a post, you really need to realize that nobody reads those line by lines. You are correct i do make assumptions on where you get your material from. your a sophist on this like Darrin and he invariably pulls his from those sources like a smoker asking phillip-morris if cigarettes are safe.

You do that but your better because you bring your own brand of stupidity into the discussion. I have to say that your explanation of cherry picking the last few samples form the graph of hundreds and hundreds of samples had me loling pretty hard. You saying they were 'TMI' was one of the dumber things I have heard in awhile.

You, however, were not to be outdone. Thanks for reminding me about the solubility chart. It was fun making fun of you the first time.

You have it all figured out on your napkin between your solubility chart and those last 10 samples. The rest is 'TMI.' And with that, you think its somehow appropriate to make statements on total CO2 in both systems.

I understand why Manny just reads your and laughs at you.

You know how I talk about pointing to specific things if you are going to call someone stupid? That has to be the holy ing grail of stupid.

On a final note, please tell us about the Revelle factor. That sounds as riveting as your discussion of caps in series. I admit that I was going down the wrong track. I figured you were going to approach it from the perspective of actually trying to look at it from the vantage point of multi-stage reactions like a chemist. I should have remembered your solubility chart.

My bad.

[DarrinS]

Oh and Briggs is a contractor for The Heartlnad Ins ute. Who would have thunk it? Do you get anything not form the, the Guardian, WUWT, or Koch?

i have to be honest I sometimes wonder if you are a shill for one of them.

In your haste to "pwn" me and discredit my source, you didn't notice that he may actually agree with you

The various black lines are the actual data! The red-line is a 10-year running mean smoother! I will call the black data the real data, and I will call the smoothed data the fictional data. Mann used a “low pass filter” different than the running mean to produce his fictional data, but a smoother is a smoother and what I’m about to say changes not one whit depending on what smoother you use.

[DarrinS]

On the subject of 1940-1970

What did was the trend for night time temperature's during that time frame? Up, or down? Why?

Enlighten me

[RandomGuy]

CO2 is Good for Plants: Another Red Herring in the Climate Change Debate

CO2 feeds plants. And so, too, does ignorance and a little bit of politicking feed inane misconceptions. ... The basic plant food argument is that since plants need CO2 to grow, more CO2 means, by proxy, more sustained and robust plant growth globally.

A quick look at the science behind this argument demonstrates its inherent weaknesses. In closed, controlled environments, like greenhouses and plant nurseries, an increase in CO2 does indeed spur plant growth. However, the globe is not a controlled environment,

While CO2 is an important element that stimulates plant growth, the planet's flora requires a tail of elements to maintain its health. Arguably the most important of these elements is water. With the global increase in temperature caused by the various factors affecting our climate's balance, increased evaporation means decreased soil moisture. Another effect of global climate change is erratic precipitation patterns. This causes extreme weather in certain geographic locations only sporadically, with overall, balanced rainfall drastically reduced.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...ge-debate.html


Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...roduction.html

I'm not even going to bother to find the Darrin quote where he goes on about this as well.

Trying to imply that we shouldn't really be worried about rising CO2 because "it is just plant food" is easily shown for the pseudoscientific bull that it is.

Keep it up.

[RandomGuy]

Enlighten me

We're trying.

You may as well say "Pick up this car and throw it to the other side of the street" or "Travel faster than light".

[DarrinS]

We're trying.

You may as well say "Pick up this car and throw it to the other side of the street" or "Travel faster than light".

I was asking Manny

[RandomGuy]

In order to be fair and with all due respect, thats not evidence. 25 years ago they had a snowless winter too (according to what you said). A single winter without snowfall means no more or no less on its own than a single winter with extremely high snowfall (which given its location in PA they've probably had very recently).

On the other hand, a 30 year trend of increased temps is climatic evidence. In one winter season, however, there are simply too many independent variables that can sway it one way or another.

As of right now, there are studies coming out that do statistical analysis to try and show that many of these events that are occurring in the short run (the Texas drought the recent Moscow heat wave as examples) have been made worse by AGW but I'm not very well versed in them as I've not taken a close look at them nor have I talked to my professors about them to get their insight. I tend to view them with a skeptical eye because I'm not sure what signal is there is possible to be separated from the noise but the statisticians working on them probably know much better than I do. I do think as we move forward this is going to both become easier, and a much more frequent direction of study.

You can bet your ass that there is a LOT of money being put towards trying to figure this out in the insurance industry.

Statistician = (roughly) Actuary

The trillion-dollar question is how bad are the extreme events going to get, if at all, and where will those events happen?

Answer that to some fair degree of confidence, and you can write your own ticket.

If you have not thought about looking for a job with an insurance company that writes property/casualty insurance, you might want to poke around.

[RandomGuy]

I was asking Manny

I know I was just bustin' yer balls. It was too tempting to pass up.

[RandomGuy]

[url]blog[/url]

I stopped reading there. Synopsis?

[DarrinS]

I stopped reading there. Synopsis?

But you guys frequently link skepticalscience blog

[MannyIsGod]

I love how WC believes his stupid theory on PPM even after I showed him that its been warmer before with nowhere near the same CO2 concentrations. Those warm ups also took much longer and would have given the ocean more time to react and release carbon from warming. Keep on believing, brother. Maybe if you close your eyes and wish hard enough it will come true.

Why is CO2 growth after the industrial revolution not linear? Um, because our industrial growth isn't linear. Why is it slower now? Because industry is cleaner, now. If only those damn college educated fools actually thought of plausible hypothesis instead of just coming up with magical wild cobra ideas that violate physics. Maybe then people like Darrin would believe them!

[MannyIsGod]

You can bet your ass that there is a LOT of money being put towards trying to figure this out in the insurance industry.

Statistician = (roughly) Actuary

The trillion-dollar question is how bad are the extreme events going to get, if at all, and where will those events happen?

Answer that to some fair degree of confidence, and you can write your own ticket.

If you have not thought about looking for a job with an insurance company that writes property/casualty insurance, you might want to poke around.

Yeah, no thanks. I know that kind of stuff appeals to you numbers guys but me, I want to do EXCITING stuff like counting tree rings or spending days or WEEKS even counting microscopic layers of ice in ice cores!



After a few semesters of being involved with research I'm fairly certain I'm going the PhD route. Where THAT takes me is another question.

[MannyIsGod]

Enlighten me

Well, how have I explained that period several times to you in the past? If you want me to enlighten you, prove that you can actually be enlightened by at least showing you have the ability to remember what I show you to begin with.

[MannyIsGod]

But you guys frequently link skepticalscience blog

I link actual scientific literature 90% of the time and when I don't I can provide it if asked.