Reply With Quote
AR5 has not been released. You should try again.
You entire lag argument fits the Russell quote to a tee. I do like how you skim scientific studies and eat up the Fox news report like stink on .
How does that dispute my claim most our warning is natural. All climate scientists agree that solar energy has increased over the centuries. The dispute is by how much.needs more study!
Northern hemisphere summers warmest in 600 years
AR5 has not been released. You should try again.
You entire lag argument fits the Russell quote to a tee. I do like how you skim scientific studies and eat up the Fox news report like stink on .
Of the 14, AR4:
Beer, J. no
Cubasch, U. contributor
Fleitmann, D. contributor
Geller, M. contributor
Gray, L.J. reviewer
Haigh, J.D. reviewer
Harrison, G. no
Hood, L. no
Lockwood, M. no
Luterbacher, J. Contributor and reviewer
Matthes, K. no
Meehl, G. A. contributor
Shindell, D. reviewer
van Geel, B. no
White, W. no
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...eferences.html
Gray Beer Keller Haigh Cubasch Harrison Luterbacher Meehl Shindell White
I was really hoping for Fuzzy to show me wrong on the AR5, but of course, the village idiot just makes accusations as normal with no evidence. We would have seen that he found the leaked AR5.
Nine of the 14 contributed in some form to the AR5.
Coordinating Lead Authors: Cubasch and Shindell.
Lead Authors: Beer, Cubasch, Luterbacher, Meehl, and Shindell.
Contributing Authors: Fleitmann, Gray, Haigh, Lockwood, Meehl, and Shindell.
None were reviewers this time.
Hey Village idiot...
Those are references, meaning papers used.
Beer, Harrison, and White were a contributing author of papers used, but not contributors to the AR4. The IPCC used several hundred, if not thousands of reference papers. May as well include every climate scientist that ever had a part in a peer review paper, by your methodology.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-11-2013 at 04:29 AM. Reason: oops... Beer, not Gray...
Thanx.
I went and found this:
I'm not asking you to regurgitate.
I am asking you to synthesize.
How would we test your hypothesis if we wanted to? What would a scientist who studies these things do in order to actually test your theory?
They didn't consider your theoretical lag time? The one you don't know how to test?
"Skimmed... quickly.... appears..."
In the end, they are the experts, you are not.
Additionally, I have had enough debates with you on topics I *am* an expert on to know your critical thinking processes are flawed, and am highly disinclined to take you at your word.
This is where I call bull .
Quite frankly, I am virtually certain that you lack the mathmatical and statistical background to even come close to understanding the calcualations involved.
In order to test the null hypothesis
versus
Lastly
I try to be respectful or your arguments until you do stupid like this.
All of these papers used to generate and build on were all done by scientists who were "in on it".
According to your conspiracy theory, the authors wrote this paper, and do papers like this, because they are too stupid to realize the stuff they learned in their DOCTORAL programs were all built on some "biased theory" that you don't like on an emotional level.
That is what your argument ultimate boils down to.
The people who made this paper are either deliberately lying or not as smart as you are, to be able to figure out that the entire conclusion of their test of their null hypothesis is wrong.
Nike, Starbucks, Intel: “We Cannot Risk Our Kids’ Futures On The False Hope The Vast Majority Of Scientists Are Wrong”
The full declaration by nearly 3 dozen brand-new companies is:
What made America great was taking a stand. Doing the things that are hard. And seizing opportunities. The very foundation of our country is based on fighting for our freedoms and ensuring the health and prosperity of our state, our community, and our families. Today those things are threatened by a changing climate that most scientists agree is being caused by air pollution.
We cannot risk our kids’ futures on the false hope that the vast majority of scientists are wrong. But just as America rose to the great challenges of the past and came out stronger than ever, we have to confront this challenge, and we have to win. And in doing this right, by saving money when we use less electricity, by saving money to drive a more efficient car, by choosing clean energy, by inventing new technologies that other countries buy, and creating jobs here at home, we will maintain our way of life and remain a true superpower in a compe ive world.
In order to make this happen, however, there must be a coordinated effort to combat climate change–with America taking the lead here at home. Leading is what we’ve always done. And by working together, regardless of politics, we’ll do it again.
The companies who signed on to this declaration “provide approximately 475,000 U.S. jobs and generate a combined annual revenue of approximately $450 billion”:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...sts-are-wrong/
So major corps, outside of world-class polluters BigCarbon, BigAg, BigChem, and the US military knows that climate change is happening and must be addressed.
This is where I call bull .
Quite frankly, I am virtually certain that you lack the mathmatical and statistical background to even come close to understanding the calcualations involved.
In order to test the null hypothesis
versus
Lol, "advanced" linear algebra. Why are you such a condescending ?
The things I say are already known science. The problem is getting a valid value. In one case, the left hand doesn't seem to talk with the right hand. For example, the 0.12 watts per meter of direct solar forcing. Those who then do the greenhouse gas forcing calculations are not considering the extra upward IR that the actual surface receives, that is not directly absorbed by the atmosphere.
Calculations and tests are not needed in what I say. I am pointing out gaping holes in the alarmist community methodology.
You could likely be right. I don't even know if I could design an adequate test. I am the creative type.
It is very simple. The climate community agrees that the ocean is storing energy, as a whole. Take that a step farther. the ocean moves, and is always changing balance. This flux now changes.
Lag is real. I'm not sure how to explain it without several diagrams and words. If you cannot accept that, then OK. I'm not willing to try much harder to make anyone understand.
I have only the vaguest notion what this means. WC directly claimed they didn't consider some pet idea in their analysis. This begs a whole lot of credulity when the material gets so esoteric like this does.The notion of Granger causality was first introduced by Wiener (1956) and later reformulated by Granger (1969). For our application, we assume that a trivariate time series follows a vector autoregression (VAR) model of finite order k:
where c = (c1,c2,c3) is a vector of constants, il,j are fixed coefficients and (u1t,u2t,u3t) is a trivariate white noise process. The model order k is kept low (k = 1,...,4)—in doing so the models are parsimonious—and the models finally selected are those endowed with the best predictive performance on each test set, choosing for k the following value:
I tend to become a condescending when people try to lie to my face, or say really obviously stupid , and expect ME to buy into it. It rankles.
That is always where conversations about pseudo-scientific feel-good ideas tend to end up.
It always sounds nice and science-y, until you start digging.
Don't you find it a bit dumb that someone can completely, casually, dismiss something out of hand that most people couldn't understand without hundreds of hours of research, by just "skimming" it?
Alternately:
Do you think that WC demonstrated enough knowledge of the implications and methods of the paper before dismissing it?
Go ahead. Give an honest answer. I triple dog dare you.
You aren't pointing out holes in anything other than your ability to be a good scientist.
Creativity is actually one of the major things one needs to design scientific tests. Don't sell it short.
(edit)
The problem is that for your claims of gaping holes to be credible, you have to demonstrate a solid understanding, or a suggested alternate method.
Meh... probably more than enough time on this. I am starting to get grumpy, so I will stop.
I understand the calculation enough that I could research the references needed. Thing is, I haven't done math like that for almost 40 years. I never needed it or used it since High School. However, it does not contain... Lag... it doesn't have time variables in it. Even the seasons have lag. Summer solstice is June, yet out hottest temperatures are typically 2 months later.
Again, lag in systems is real.
It isn't stupid to see problems in an argument, and realize that another formula does not need to be used to counter it.
You think what I say is stupid? What about how you tried to apply this:
Huh? Absolutely not. Why do you disregard my previous words? Very few scientists are predicting any actual deception. Again, the science here is being taught incorrectly.1360/1365= .9963..... 1-.9963= .37%
Can you show me a paper that shows the solar/ocean does not have a long time lag for energy movement?
This is one of your problems Fuzzy. You grab on to something you think you can run with, which is more illusion that real. Again, very few scientists are trying to be deceptive, and I don't know that individuals with a like minded agenda, acting independent, can be called a conspiracy. That would be like saying all the people rushing to the banks to take out their money in the early part of the 20th century, was a conspiracy to cause the great depression.
Please... stay real. Stop the bull hype and innuendo. Leave that for the trolls like Fuzzy.
Believe as you wish, but also consider that it is easier to publish a paper that the forces in charge want, rather than one that goes against their beliefs.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-11-2013 at 03:00 PM.
Sorry, but I do sell myself short here. I have worked with engineers for years. I had a few that came for me on their works for opinions. I was seldom good at offering alternatives, but I could immediately spot the shortcomings in their designs.You aren't pointing out holes in anything other than your ability to be a good scientist.
Creativity is actually one of the major things one needs to design scientific tests. Don't sell it short.
I'm sure that through the six degrees of separation theory, someone will see a point every now than then that I make as valid. I'll let my ideas take that path.
The equations do consider time. The fact you think they don't, and that the equations would require a time variable is particularly damning.
Your "lag" claim is meaningless until you can show exactly how that would affect the methodology in the paper. By your own admission, you are incapable of doing that.
Not helping your case.
Bull .
What evidence do you have that your claim is correct?
Bull .
It isn't just one calculation. It is a series of calculations, based on thirty+ different references, that you haven't read.
You completely dismissed it, without fully understanding it for the sole reason that it seemed to contradict your previously held-ideas, and didn't include one of your pet UNPROVEN theories.
Again, not helping me find your claims any more credible than I did before.
I am simply asking good critical thinking questions.
You claim to advocate open review process, but when that kind of process is subjected to your claims, they don't do very well.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-11-2013 at 03:12 PM. Reason: being nice.
Random. Look at what the article says. It is only using land and sea temperatures, TSI data, three types of greenhouse gas data, and three ocean oscillations. Where is the data for aerosol increased then decreases in the 20th century? How did the apply the accepted 5 to 6 MPH average of ocean surface movement for their sea temperature movements, which also vary a great amount by location?
It's nice to simplify things, but significant variables cannot be excluded.
I never said how long it would take me. It may take me years, but If I set my mind to it, I could.
Thing is, I simply would not do what I consider a waste of my time.
How about all the findings that keep being revised.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
