Reply With Quote
A basic misapplication of stats can lead to models that don't tell you anything of value.
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'
A basic misapplication of stats can lead to models that don't tell you anything of value.
From the caption (bolded and underlined, just like Manny did because, that makes me smarter):
Aren't "summing" and "addition" the same thing?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.
Back to the cartoonist's site?
The Truth about Skeptical Science
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.
That's ing hilarious!
OMFG! Please, make it stop!
Scared grasshoppers change soil chemistry
The le of the article should read, "Scared Grasshoppers Cause Global Warming" but, I'm sure they wanted people to read it before laughing...
Key excerpts:
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?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.
Oh, and I wasn't aware spiders engage in ceremonial death rituals like burying their prey.
Then they make the global warming connection!
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?"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."
First we're told Dinosaurs farts cause killer Poison Ivy and, now, this. Jeeze...is there anything that doesn't cause global climate change (which begs the question, How the do you model EVERYTHING) and is there any calamity that won't befall us in the aftermath?
Yoni, here is one you'll like as it addresses the issues of modeling you are now harping on:
http://www.masterresource.org/2012/0...-skeptical-of/
From the link:
True that!"...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."
Nice link, thanks.
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.
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.
Now ask him what he thinks that the scientists that authored or coauthored 40% of his list has received money from Exxon for decades.That's ing hilarious!
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?
Sherwood Idso.
Did you not read the link drug addict?
Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?
Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics 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)
I take it you are also mathematically illiterate if you think Dr. Idso's papers are 40% of the list.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."
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.
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?
So re ed.
Are summing and addition the same thing? No, dumbass. This is why you don't understand half this .
Ad hominem, Aspie!!!!!!!!Back to the cartoonist's site?
The Truth about Skeptical Science
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.
Irrefutable ad hominem!!!!!!!!!!
being a cartoonist with a website >>>>>>> having aspergers with a website, IMO.
That and you don't directly answer any question.
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:
He's saying what I was saying, only better.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.
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.
Except that the link acknowledges warming that you do not. Why try to take up a stance that is not yours?
Well, I'm never going to type out 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.
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.
Did AGCC proponents change the way they normalize temperatures, why, and to what effect?
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.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.
When you say like this you just make yourself look even dumber. Please continue.There is absolutely no reason to believe anyone has a good enough handle on climate science to make them credible. Period.
1988 Hansen vs. 1969 astronauts.
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 re ed, 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.
Please keep going. PLEASE.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions