Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Global warming has stopped? Again??
102 views
Skip to first unread message
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Feb 6, 2013, 5:48:25 PM2/6/13
to
On Feb 6, 2:39 pm, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:<SNIP>
Information about earth's atmosphere.
http://www.mnsu.edu/weather/upper/500temp.html
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/
http://csmarts.colorado.edu/science.htm
DANDE
Drag and Atmospheric Neutral Density Explorer
3 examples of research using the term "Insulating" or "insulation"
properties of an atmosphere.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.2931.pdf
On the Emergent Spectra of Hot Protoplanet Collision Afterglows
“This is the second magma ocean phase, and this time the freshly
molten planet is able to retain its high temperature over much longer
timescales, due to the insulating effects of the outgassed atmosphere”
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/735/2/72/pdf/0004-637X_735_2_72.pdf
EFFECTS OF STELLAR FLUX ON TIDALLY LOCKED TERRESTRIAL PLANETS:
DEGREE-1 MANTLE CONVECTION AND LOCAL MAGMA PONDS
“This simple model does not treat internal frictional tidal heating or
atmospheric heat transport or insulation.”
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/zircon/Valley2002Cool_Early_Earth.pdf
A cool early Earth
“Although these events surely caused massive melting before 4.45 Ga,
estimates of surface temperatures after 4.45 Ga depend critically on
the magnitudes of meteorite bombardment and atmospheric insulation,
which are uncertain.”
Information about earth's atmosphere.
http://www.mnsu.edu/weather/upper/500temp.html
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/
http://csmarts.colorado.edu/science.htm
DANDE
Drag and Atmospheric Neutral Density Explorer
3 examples of research using the term "Insulating" or "insulation"
properties of an atmosphere.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.2931.pdf
On the Emergent Spectra of Hot Protoplanet Collision Afterglows
“This is the second magma ocean phase, and this time the freshly
molten planet is able to retain its high temperature over much longer
timescales, due to the insulating effects of the outgassed atmosphere”
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/735/2/72/pdf/0004-637X_735_2_72.pdf
EFFECTS OF STELLAR FLUX ON TIDALLY LOCKED TERRESTRIAL PLANETS:
DEGREE-1 MANTLE CONVECTION AND LOCAL MAGMA PONDS
“This simple model does not treat internal frictional tidal heating or
atmospheric heat transport or insulation.”
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/zircon/Valley2002Cool_Early_Earth.pdf
A cool early Earth
“Although these events surely caused massive melting before 4.45 Ga,
estimates of surface temperatures after 4.45 Ga depend critically on
the magnitudes of meteorite bombardment and atmospheric insulation,
which are uncertain.”
Paul Aubrin
Feb 6, 2013, 6:04:06 PM2/6/13
to
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:16:29 -0600, josephus wrote:
>> Actually nobody knows if it was stolen, or leaked. My personal opinion
>> is that the person who did that had a lot of time at his disposal and
>> very carefully gathered the documents he put in the archive. It is
>> hardly the work of a random hacker.
>>
>>
> I NEVER CLAIMED the programmer was a random hacker. there are plenty
> of people around who could have done what the harryreadme did.
> But the programmer at IPCC did not write harryreadme.
> josephus
From what he wrote, Harry worked at the University of East Anglia,
probably with Tim Osborne who was a Contributing Author to Chapter 6
("Palaeoclimate") of Working Group I to AR4.
"This took longer than hoped.. running out of disk space again. This is
why Tim didn't save more of the intermediate products - which would have
made my detective work easier. The ridiculous process he adopted - and
which we have dutifully followed - creates hundreds of intermediate files
at every stage, none of which are automatically zipped/unzipped. Crazy.
I've filled a 100gb disk!"
>> Actually nobody knows if it was stolen, or leaked. My personal opinion
>> is that the person who did that had a lot of time at his disposal and
>> very carefully gathered the documents he put in the archive. It is
>> hardly the work of a random hacker.
>>
>>
> I NEVER CLAIMED the programmer was a random hacker. there are plenty
> of people around who could have done what the harryreadme did.
> But the programmer at IPCC did not write harryreadme.
> josephus
From what he wrote, Harry worked at the University of East Anglia,
probably with Tim Osborne who was a Contributing Author to Chapter 6
("Palaeoclimate") of Working Group I to AR4.
"This took longer than hoped.. running out of disk space again. This is
why Tim didn't save more of the intermediate products - which would have
made my detective work easier. The ridiculous process he adopted - and
which we have dutifully followed - creates hundreds of intermediate files
at every stage, none of which are automatically zipped/unzipped. Crazy.
I've filled a 100gb disk!"
Paul Aubrin
Feb 6, 2013, 6:07:39 PM2/6/13
to
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:13:30 -0600, josephus wrote:
>>>> keeplist=where(totn gt 2,nkeep)
>>> keeplist is the name of a data set pointer
>>>
>>> where do they write code to change the input data.
>>> show me.
>>
>> Stop in 1940 to avoid the decline.
>>
> you made that up that is NO EVIDENCE of anything.
It is the evidence that the above program should not be used to plot data
beyond 1940 to avoid to show the discrepancy mentioned in Phil Jones
email quoted previously in the same thread.
>>>> keeplist=where(totn gt 2,nkeep)
>>> keeplist is the name of a data set pointer
>>>
>>> where do they write code to change the input data.
>>> show me.
>>
>> Stop in 1940 to avoid the decline.
>>
> you made that up that is NO EVIDENCE of anything.
It is the evidence that the above program should not be used to plot data
beyond 1940 to avoid to show the discrepancy mentioned in Phil Jones
email quoted previously in the same thread.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 6, 2013, 6:14:03 PM2/6/13
to
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:57:28 -0600, josephus wrote:
>> You have not the slightest evidence in favour of this allegation.
>> On the opposite, it would be very difficult to manufacture an
>> harry_readme.txt, its content (15012 lines, 93689 words, many file
>> references and real life details) cannot reasonably have been invented.
>>
>>
>>
> which is exactly the proof it was not because no programmer in his right
> mind would be doing that. he would be too busy doing work. I know
> because I had people trying to get me and others to document anything.
Maybe you didn't do that, but a physicist will keep a detailed journal of
his manipulations. Obviously Harry is a physicist with good programming
skills.
http://www1.appstate.edu/dept/physics/labs/notebook.html
Quote:
"The keeping of a lab notebook is an integral part of a professional
scientist's work in lab. For the professional scientist, the lab notebook
serves as an ongoing journal of ideas, experimental methods, collected
data, calculations, suggestions for change and suggestions for further
study. When done correctly, the lab notebook documents the professional
journey of a scientist, telling the story of the progress, barriers,
successes, failures, and solutions over the course of time."
>> You have not the slightest evidence in favour of this allegation.
>> On the opposite, it would be very difficult to manufacture an
>> harry_readme.txt, its content (15012 lines, 93689 words, many file
>> references and real life details) cannot reasonably have been invented.
>>
>>
>>
> which is exactly the proof it was not because no programmer in his right
> mind would be doing that. he would be too busy doing work. I know
> because I had people trying to get me and others to document anything.
Maybe you didn't do that, but a physicist will keep a detailed journal of
his manipulations. Obviously Harry is a physicist with good programming
skills.
http://www1.appstate.edu/dept/physics/labs/notebook.html
Quote:
"The keeping of a lab notebook is an integral part of a professional
scientist's work in lab. For the professional scientist, the lab notebook
serves as an ongoing journal of ideas, experimental methods, collected
data, calculations, suggestions for change and suggestions for further
study. When done correctly, the lab notebook documents the professional
journey of a scientist, telling the story of the progress, barriers,
successes, failures, and solutions over the course of time."
Last Post
Feb 6, 2013, 7:18:30 PM2/6/13
to
zero application in the 21st century because cientists I born since 1960 have been perverted by UN money
Last Post
Feb 6, 2013, 7:33:29 PM2/6/13
to
On Sunday, January 13, 2013 10:36:47 AM UTC-5, Tom P wrote:
> On 01/12/2013 06:25 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:28:31 +0100, Tom P wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> On 01/12/2013 09:57 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:58:08 +0100, Tom P wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>>> You failed to notice that the author of the ASA article is NOT Mr.
>
> >>>>> Wegman.
>
> >>>>> It is not a peer reviewed paper, it is the ASA Newsletter.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Exactly. It is an ASA junket party organized by, guess who, Ed Wegman.
>
> >>>> Read down to the bottom and find a list of the downtown Salt Lake City
>
> >>>> coffee shops. (no idea what else you can do in SLC, I see they had the
>
> >>>> next one in Denver)
>
> >>>
>
> >>> It is a Newsletter, the author of the article is not Mr.Wegman.
>
> >>> The article mentions three speakers Ed Wegman, J. Michael Wallace of
>
> >>> the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, and
>
> >>> Richard L. Smith. It was, apparently, an equilibrated debate.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> So you don't have any reference to the official ASA position suggested
>
> >>> by Desertphile either?
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >> Why should I? Wegman has already been proven wrong. You seem to think
>
> >> that quoting a newsletter about a speech given by a statistician whose
>
> >> work has been proven wrong carries more weight than any number of peer
>
> >> reviewed research proving that Mann was right?
>
> >
>
> > The point here is not if MBH98 results are plausible or not.
>
> > It is about the validity of MBH statistical methods.
>
> > Wegman was not proven wrong. What you can read in the ASA newsletter
>
> > obviously contradicts what Desertphile says about the ASA.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Well of course you can be absolutely sure that when Wegman holds a
>
> speech at a conference he organized himself about his own work, then
>
> he's not going to tell everybody that he was wrong, is he?
>
>
>
> Have you read the Ammann and Wahl papers yet? They explore specifically
>
> and in great detail the criticisms made by McIntyre and McKitrick .. Not
>
> only are they able to reproduce the MBH results, they show that some of
>
> the objections raised by MM are themselves based on an incorrect
>
> application of statistical methods.
>
>
>
> Why is the A&W analysis relevant? The answer is that Wegman made exactly
>
> the same mistake in the analysis he presented at the famous
>
> sub-committee hearings as McIntyre and McKitrick did in their paper. The
>
> mistake was spotted by Professor Ritson, who attempted to get Wegman to
>
> explain this, see e-mail transcripts at
>
> http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/house06/RitsonWegmanRequests.pdf
>
>
>
> As you can see from the transcripts, Wegman refused to reply.
Ø — Without doubt Mann's hockey stick is an hoax.
> On 01/12/2013 06:25 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:28:31 +0100, Tom P wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> On 01/12/2013 09:57 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:58:08 +0100, Tom P wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>>> You failed to notice that the author of the ASA article is NOT Mr.
>
> >>>>> Wegman.
>
> >>>>> It is not a peer reviewed paper, it is the ASA Newsletter.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Exactly. It is an ASA junket party organized by, guess who, Ed Wegman.
>
> >>>> Read down to the bottom and find a list of the downtown Salt Lake City
>
> >>>> coffee shops. (no idea what else you can do in SLC, I see they had the
>
> >>>> next one in Denver)
>
> >>>
>
> >>> It is a Newsletter, the author of the article is not Mr.Wegman.
>
> >>> The article mentions three speakers Ed Wegman, J. Michael Wallace of
>
> >>> the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, and
>
> >>> Richard L. Smith. It was, apparently, an equilibrated debate.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> So you don't have any reference to the official ASA position suggested
>
> >>> by Desertphile either?
>
> >>>
>
> >>>
>
> >> Why should I? Wegman has already been proven wrong. You seem to think
>
> >> that quoting a newsletter about a speech given by a statistician whose
>
> >> work has been proven wrong carries more weight than any number of peer
>
> >> reviewed research proving that Mann was right?
>
> >
>
> > The point here is not if MBH98 results are plausible or not.
>
> > It is about the validity of MBH statistical methods.
>
> > Wegman was not proven wrong. What you can read in the ASA newsletter
>
> > obviously contradicts what Desertphile says about the ASA.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Well of course you can be absolutely sure that when Wegman holds a
>
> speech at a conference he organized himself about his own work, then
>
> he's not going to tell everybody that he was wrong, is he?
>
>
>
> Have you read the Ammann and Wahl papers yet? They explore specifically
>
> and in great detail the criticisms made by McIntyre and McKitrick .. Not
>
> only are they able to reproduce the MBH results, they show that some of
>
> the objections raised by MM are themselves based on an incorrect
>
> application of statistical methods.
>
>
>
> Why is the A&W analysis relevant? The answer is that Wegman made exactly
>
> the same mistake in the analysis he presented at the famous
>
> sub-committee hearings as McIntyre and McKitrick did in their paper. The
>
> mistake was spotted by Professor Ritson, who attempted to get Wegman to
>
> explain this, see e-mail transcripts at
>
> http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/house06/RitsonWegmanRequests.pdf
>
>
>
> As you can see from the transcripts, Wegman refused to reply.
Ø — Without doubt Mann's hockey stick is an hoax.
emoneyjoe
Feb 6, 2013, 9:45:40 PM2/6/13
to
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:09:08 -0700, Desertphile
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:31:32 -0700, Desertphile
><Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03 Feb 2013 07:39:21 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 13:26:00 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 02 Feb 2013 09:07:22 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:49:53 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 04:31:00 -0600, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
>> > > > > Janoschka) wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> What a nice planet!!!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Evidence that shows human-caused warming of the planet has not stopped:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > http://desertphile.org/CRUTEM4.JPG
>> > > >
>> > > > Evidence that this evidence is based on dubious "projections" is now
>> > >
>> > > It's measurements from thermometers, Shit-for-brains.
>>
>> > No, impossible, the attribution of a cause to the evolution of global
>>
>> And yet scientists measure Earth's global average temperature all the
>> time. How do you explain that fact?
>
>See what I mean? LOL! Hilarious!
It is, saying something so stupid!
When any temperature is below freezing,
it can't be averaged, doing that is a waste
of time and makes climate science a
laughable enterprise.
Do you know the difference between
measuring and playing with numbers?
<Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:31:32 -0700, Desertphile
><Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03 Feb 2013 07:39:21 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 13:26:00 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 02 Feb 2013 09:07:22 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:49:53 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 04:31:00 -0600, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
>> > > > > Janoschka) wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> What a nice planet!!!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Evidence that shows human-caused warming of the planet has not stopped:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > http://desertphile.org/CRUTEM4.JPG
>> > > >
>> > > > Evidence that this evidence is based on dubious "projections" is now
>> > >
>> > > It's measurements from thermometers, Shit-for-brains.
>>
>> > No, impossible, the attribution of a cause to the evolution of global
>>
>> And yet scientists measure Earth's global average temperature all the
>> time. How do you explain that fact?
>
>See what I mean? LOL! Hilarious!
It is, saying something so stupid!
When any temperature is below freezing,
it can't be averaged, doing that is a waste
of time and makes climate science a
laughable enterprise.
Do you know the difference between
measuring and playing with numbers?
emoneyjoe
Feb 6, 2013, 10:47:04 PM2/6/13
to
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 08:31:51 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 6, 8:07 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 05:19:25 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>>
>> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 6, 1:19 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:" It should
>> >be easy to determine some of these claims"
>>
>> >The bottom of clouds during night also have a downward IR flux. Hint
>> >use a Pyrgeometer.
>>
><not the point>
>>
><stupid assertion snipped>
>>
><stupid low concentration argument snipped>
>
>The downward emissions have been observed Pyrgeometer.
Wavelength, and what else?
If you were right I would be able to heat
my house with concentrated reflected IR
from the local atmosphere.
I hope you are right, but I can't find any
IR concentrating reflectors for sale. Help me!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/10/hey-school-teachers-those-greenhouse-effect-experiments-are-junk
http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/05/uncertainty-in-observations-of-the-earths-energy-balance/
<columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 6, 8:07 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 05:19:25 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>>
>> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Feb 6, 1:19 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:" It should
>> >be easy to determine some of these claims"
>>
>> >The bottom of clouds during night also have a downward IR flux. Hint
>> >use a Pyrgeometer.
>>
><not the point>
>>
><stupid assertion snipped>
>>
><stupid low concentration argument snipped>
>
>The downward emissions have been observed Pyrgeometer.
Wavelength, and what else?
If you were right I would be able to heat
my house with concentrated reflected IR
from the local atmosphere.
I hope you are right, but I can't find any
IR concentrating reflectors for sale. Help me!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/10/hey-school-teachers-those-greenhouse-effect-experiments-are-junk
http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/05/uncertainty-in-observations-of-the-earths-energy-balance/
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Feb 6, 2013, 11:09:22 PM2/6/13
to
On Feb 6, 7:47 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:"If you were
Pyrgeometer (clouds produce downward IR flux). And i must say only to
a denialist such as yourself would such a statement constitute a valid
logical rebuttal for if you could build a reflector the size of the
atmosphere i would say turn it around and make one big telescope :-).
Increasing atmospheric concentrations of co2 will increase the
downward IR flux from the atmosphere, which delays the transfer of
energy from the heat sink to the cold sink (a thermally insulating
atmosphere with the green house effect)
Information about earth's atmosphere.
http://www.mnsu.edu/weather/upper/500temp.html
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/
http://csmarts.colorado.edu/science.htm
DANDE
Drag and Atmospheric Neutral Density Explorer
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Atmospheric_boundary_layer
2012 American Meteorological Society
***atmospheric boundary layer***
(Abbreviated ABL;
"also called boundary layer, planetary boundary layer.) The bottom
layer of the troposphere that is in contact with the surface of the
earth.
It is often turbulent and is capped by a statically stable layer of
air or temperature inversion. The ABL depth (i.e., the inversion
height) is variable in time and space, ranging from tens of meters in
strongly statically stable situations, to several kilometers in
convective conditions over deserts. During fair weather over land,
the
ABL has a marked diurnal cycle. During daytime, a mixed layer of
vigorous turbulence grows in depth, capped by a statically stable
entrainment zone of intermittent turbulence. Near sunset, turbulence
decays, leaving a residual layer in place of the mixed layer. During
nighttime, the bottom of the residual layer is transformed into a
statically stable boundary layer by contact with the radiatively
cooled surface. Cumulus and stratocumulus clouds can form within the
top portion of a humid ABL, while fog can form at the bottom of a
stable boundary layer. The bottom 10% of the ABL is called the
surface
layer.
Compare Ekman layer.
Stull, R. B. 1988. An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology. 666
pp."
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Stable_boundary_layer
"stable boundary layer
"(Abbreviated SBL.) A cool layer of air adjacent to a cold surface of
the earth, where temperature within that layer is statically stably
stratified.
SBLs can form at night over land when the earth is cooled by net loss
of radiation, and they can form at any time when air moves over a
relatively cooler land or water surface. Many interacting processes
can occur within the SBL: patchy sporadic turbulence, internal
gravity
waves, drainage flows, inertial oscillations, and nocturnal jets.
See nocturnal boundary layer."
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Radiation
"radiation
The process by which electromagnetic radiation is propagated through
free space.
The propagation takes place at the speed of light (3.00 x 108 m s-1
in
vacuum) by way of joint (orthogonal) oscillations in the electric and
magnetic fields. This process is to be distinguished from other forms
of energy transfer such as conduction and convection.
Propagation of energy by any physical quantity governed by a wave
equation."
right I would be able to heat my house with concentrated reflected
IR from the local atmosphere. "
Come on silly atmospheric downward IR flux has been observed by
IR from the local atmosphere. "
Pyrgeometer (clouds produce downward IR flux). And i must say only to
a denialist such as yourself would such a statement constitute a valid
logical rebuttal for if you could build a reflector the size of the
atmosphere i would say turn it around and make one big telescope :-).
Increasing atmospheric concentrations of co2 will increase the
downward IR flux from the atmosphere, which delays the transfer of
energy from the heat sink to the cold sink (a thermally insulating
atmosphere with the green house effect)
Information about earth's atmosphere.
http://www.mnsu.edu/weather/upper/500temp.html
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/
http://csmarts.colorado.edu/science.htm
DANDE
Drag and Atmospheric Neutral Density Explorer
2012 American Meteorological Society
***atmospheric boundary layer***
(Abbreviated ABL;
"also called boundary layer, planetary boundary layer.) The bottom
layer of the troposphere that is in contact with the surface of the
earth.
It is often turbulent and is capped by a statically stable layer of
air or temperature inversion. The ABL depth (i.e., the inversion
height) is variable in time and space, ranging from tens of meters in
strongly statically stable situations, to several kilometers in
convective conditions over deserts. During fair weather over land,
the
ABL has a marked diurnal cycle. During daytime, a mixed layer of
vigorous turbulence grows in depth, capped by a statically stable
entrainment zone of intermittent turbulence. Near sunset, turbulence
decays, leaving a residual layer in place of the mixed layer. During
nighttime, the bottom of the residual layer is transformed into a
statically stable boundary layer by contact with the radiatively
cooled surface. Cumulus and stratocumulus clouds can form within the
top portion of a humid ABL, while fog can form at the bottom of a
stable boundary layer. The bottom 10% of the ABL is called the
surface
layer.
Compare Ekman layer.
Stull, R. B. 1988. An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology. 666
pp."
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Stable_boundary_layer
"stable boundary layer
"(Abbreviated SBL.) A cool layer of air adjacent to a cold surface of
the earth, where temperature within that layer is statically stably
stratified.
SBLs can form at night over land when the earth is cooled by net loss
of radiation, and they can form at any time when air moves over a
relatively cooler land or water surface. Many interacting processes
can occur within the SBL: patchy sporadic turbulence, internal
gravity
waves, drainage flows, inertial oscillations, and nocturnal jets.
See nocturnal boundary layer."
http://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/Radiation
"radiation
The process by which electromagnetic radiation is propagated through
free space.
The propagation takes place at the speed of light (3.00 x 108 m s-1
in
vacuum) by way of joint (orthogonal) oscillations in the electric and
magnetic fields. This process is to be distinguished from other forms
of energy transfer such as conduction and convection.
Propagation of energy by any physical quantity governed by a wave
equation."
josephus
Feb 7, 2013, 1:56:20 AM2/7/13
to
SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> news:rhu0g8hfqgaafhtbe...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:30:05 -0600, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>
>>> "josephus" <dog...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:B8Sdnb-GHd9_J2LN...@earthlink.com...
>>>> Jason wrote:
>>>>> In article <kco83b$krc$1...@dont-email.me>, "Scout"
>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Jason-10011...@66-53-219-34.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
>>>>>>> In article <kcnshk$32j$1...@dont-email.me>, "Scout"
>>>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:Jason-10011...@67-150-120-1.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
>>>>>>>>> In article <gcnue8hcl8mfctk8t...@4ax.com>, Alan
>>>>>>>>> Ferris
>>>>>>>>> <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:23:57 -0800, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason)
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <qemdnaoIdeFrt3LN...@posted.sonicnet>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> K00ky cultist. Your hatred of humanity has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noted. Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But AGW is not a theory: it is an observed phenomena.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What has been observed: Four predictions, four failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 160,000 chances that the AGW theory, as expressed by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AGW is NOT an observed phenomena. It was an hypothesis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ENSO 30 years ascending phase, which does not stand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> confrontation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the facts nowadays.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Do you insane Republicans think that refusing to acceot
>>>>>>>>>>>> directly
>>>>>>>>>>>> observed phenomena will some how make it go away? Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>> fucking
>>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans honestly that fucking insane? Seriously?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> A good guy with a gun:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwRrmH39n00
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let's say that America spent 5 trillion dollars reducing CO2
>>>>>>>>>>> levels
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> all of the other countries done nothing--would it help reduce
>>>>>>>>>>> global
>>>>>>>>>>> warming?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We simply do not know. But we do know that if we don't it is
>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>> getting worse.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your doctor has told you to take drugs to lower your blood
>>>>>>>>>> pressure.
>>>>>>>>> You don't
>>>>>>>>>> have to. Others don't. You might get run over so your blood
>>>>>>>>>> pressure
>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>>> pointless. So why do you take those drugs?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Hiary Ferrit
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ()'.'.'()
>>>>>>>>>> ( (T) )
>>>>>>>>>> ( ) . ( )
>>>>>>>>>> (")_(")
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWhXGhv-tTo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7bsUttGho8
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60mZsohBr3Q
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I understand your point. I have a different point of view. If
>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>> country in the world is willing to do their part--let's do it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well that's a failure right there because not every country will.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So why talk about something that isn't going to happen?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK--if half of the largest countries decide to do it--it will
>>>>>>> probably
>>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but I'm not going to risk wreaking the economy on a "will
>>>>>> probably
>>>>>> work" particularly when we haven't even established causality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is an excellent point. Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> the coal and oil shill agree with each other.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously when you have no argument you are reduced to attacking the
>>> messengers
>>> A loser tactic
>>
>> The defenders of fossil fuels refuse to accept any evidence and repeat
>> the same old lies that coal and gas & oil interests have been telling
>> for decades.
>
> There you go making another stupid assumption'
> Your need to use "us vs them" arguments and boxing in those who disagree
> with you as "defenders of fossil fuels" and "deniers" demonstrates how
> weak your position is
> Since you can NOT argue the facts, you are reduced to denigrating those
> who dare to oppose you..
>
>
>
>
>> As long as you refuse to accept reality, there's no way you
>> will ever understand why you are totally, hopelessly wrong and an enemy
>> of all of our descendants.
>
> The reality is that AGW is more of a religion based on pseudo-science,
> than anything else
> The fanatical need of such as you to attack and denigrate those who dare
> to question you proves that..
>
I have been looking at your posts. you seem to be a sophisticated half
truth merchant. AGW is the thing generated by deniers. there is NO
THEORY of AGW. AGW (which maybe real) is still a strawman argument.
josephus
>
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> news:rhu0g8hfqgaafhtbe...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:30:05 -0600, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>>
>>> "josephus" <dog...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:B8Sdnb-GHd9_J2LN...@earthlink.com...
>>>> Jason wrote:
>>>>> In article <kco83b$krc$1...@dont-email.me>, "Scout"
>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Jason-10011...@66-53-219-34.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
>>>>>>> In article <kcnshk$32j$1...@dont-email.me>, "Scout"
>>>>>>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:Jason-10011...@67-150-120-1.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
>>>>>>>>> In article <gcnue8hcl8mfctk8t...@4ax.com>, Alan
>>>>>>>>> Ferris
>>>>>>>>> <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:23:57 -0800, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason)
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <qemdnaoIdeFrt3LN...@posted.sonicnet>,
>>>>>>>>>>> rep...@scientology.org wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 12:00:55 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> K00ky cultist. Your hatred of humanity has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noted. Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But AGW is not a theory: it is an observed phenomena.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What has been observed: Four predictions, four failures.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in 160,000 chances that the AGW theory, as expressed by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPCC,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> AGW is NOT an observed phenomena. It was an hypothesis,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ENSO 30 years ascending phase, which does not stand the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> confrontation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the facts nowadays.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. Do you insane Republicans think that refusing to acceot
>>>>>>>>>>>> directly
>>>>>>>>>>>> observed phenomena will some how make it go away? Are you
>>>>>>>>>>>> fucking
>>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans honestly that fucking insane? Seriously?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>> A good guy with a gun:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwRrmH39n00
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let's say that America spent 5 trillion dollars reducing CO2
>>>>>>>>>>> levels
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> all of the other countries done nothing--would it help reduce
>>>>>>>>>>> global
>>>>>>>>>>> warming?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We simply do not know. But we do know that if we don't it is
>>>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>>>> getting worse.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your doctor has told you to take drugs to lower your blood
>>>>>>>>>> pressure.
>>>>>>>>> You don't
>>>>>>>>>> have to. Others don't. You might get run over so your blood
>>>>>>>>>> pressure
>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>>> pointless. So why do you take those drugs?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Hiary Ferrit
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ()'.'.'()
>>>>>>>>>> ( (T) )
>>>>>>>>>> ( ) . ( )
>>>>>>>>>> (")_(")
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWhXGhv-tTo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7bsUttGho8
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60mZsohBr3Q
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I understand your point. I have a different point of view. If
>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>> country in the world is willing to do their part--let's do it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well that's a failure right there because not every country will.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So why talk about something that isn't going to happen?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK--if half of the largest countries decide to do it--it will
>>>>>>> probably
>>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, but I'm not going to risk wreaking the economy on a "will
>>>>>> probably
>>>>>> work" particularly when we haven't even established causality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is an excellent point. Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> the coal and oil shill agree with each other.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously when you have no argument you are reduced to attacking the
>>> messengers
>>> A loser tactic
>>
>> The defenders of fossil fuels refuse to accept any evidence and repeat
>> the same old lies that coal and gas & oil interests have been telling
>> for decades.
>
> There you go making another stupid assumption'
> Your need to use "us vs them" arguments and boxing in those who disagree
> with you as "defenders of fossil fuels" and "deniers" demonstrates how
> weak your position is
> Since you can NOT argue the facts, you are reduced to denigrating those
> who dare to oppose you..
>
>
>
>
>> As long as you refuse to accept reality, there's no way you
>> will ever understand why you are totally, hopelessly wrong and an enemy
>> of all of our descendants.
>
> The reality is that AGW is more of a religion based on pseudo-science,
> than anything else
> The fanatical need of such as you to attack and denigrate those who dare
> to question you proves that..
>
I have been looking at your posts. you seem to be a sophisticated half
truth merchant. AGW is the thing generated by deniers. there is NO
THEORY of AGW. AGW (which maybe real) is still a strawman argument.
josephus
josephus
Feb 7, 2013, 2:01:58 AM2/7/13
to
Paul Aubrin wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:50:20 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>
>> MBH98 itself states he's full of shit:
>>
>> http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf
>>
>
> MBH98 can hardly be used as a source to confirm that the statistical
> statistical methods used in it don't are valid.
>
> Note, indeed, on page 787 to Preisendorfer which states "The first step
> in the PCA of [data set] Z is to center the values z[ t,x] on their
> averages over the t series", which has not been done in MBH98 which uses
> de-centred series.
>
> 25. Preisendorfer, R. W. Principal Component Analysis in Meteorology and
> Oceanography (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1988).
>
>
>
>
anallysis from a non statistician? that does not mean we believe you.
the problem is those are not references to particular data. the fact
you cut and pasted that quote out of context. and not out of subject is
the problem.
josephus
josephus
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:50:20 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>
>> MBH98 itself states he's full of shit:
>>
>> http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf
>>
>
> MBH98 can hardly be used as a source to confirm that the statistical
> statistical methods used in it don't are valid.
>
> Note, indeed, on page 787 to Preisendorfer which states "The first step
> in the PCA of [data set] Z is to center the values z[ t,x] on their
> averages over the t series", which has not been done in MBH98 which uses
> de-centred series.
>
> 25. Preisendorfer, R. W. Principal Component Analysis in Meteorology and
> Oceanography (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1988).
>
>
>
>
anallysis from a non statistician? that does not mean we believe you.
the problem is those are not references to particular data. the fact
you cut and pasted that quote out of context. and not out of subject is
the problem.
josephus
josephus
josephus
Feb 7, 2013, 2:06:27 AM2/7/13
to
Paul Aubrin wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:45:05 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>
>>> 1/ you are starting to move the goal posts. Do you feel uneasy?
>>
>> Huh? I asked for evidence that there is anything wrong with MBH98 that
>> in any way changes the paper or its conclusions.
>>
>> Got any?
> You got quotes and references.
>
>>
>>> 2/ What is wrong? For example, MBH98 references the book "Principal
>>> Component Analysis in Meteorology and Oceanography" by Rudolph W.
>>> Preisendorfer ISBN: 9780444430144. This book states: "The first step in
>>> averages.
>>
>> ... because there are at least eight other ways to do it, Z-ordering
>> being just one of them.
>
> Preisendorfer is the reference quoted on the subject in MBH98 itself
> [page 787 reference 25].
>
>>
>> Next?
>>
>>> MBH98 is not consistent with the PCA methodology as described in its
>>> main statistical reference.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
> Preisendorfer :
> MBH98 didn't centre the series (it actually de-centred them).
>
>>
>>> The result of the use of non-centred variables is well described,
>>
>> You mean centered, not non-centered.
> I meant non-centred. MBH98 used series that were not centred around their
> mean.
>
>>
>>> it emphasise (tremendously in the case of MBH98) the weight in the PCA
>>> of the variables with greater variance.
>>
>> ... only three of which are >1, thereforre all the others were rejected.
> Actually, instead of filtering noise, the way PCA was used in MBH98 only
> selected a few data series which were not representative of paleo-
> temperatures. MBH98 is not a global northern hemisphere reconstruction,
> it is a bristlecone growth curve.
>
>>
>>> Did you understand this explanation?
>>
>> Idiot.
> Your permanent use of abusive statement gives a very negative image of
> you. Why can't you reply correctly, you know that abuse is the last
> resort of a looser in a debate.
>
>
quoting mathematics with out numbers is in this case stupid. there
no context for the math. the assertions are UNSUPPORTED
josephus
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:45:05 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>
>>> 1/ you are starting to move the goal posts. Do you feel uneasy?
>>
>> Huh? I asked for evidence that there is anything wrong with MBH98 that
>> in any way changes the paper or its conclusions.
>>
>> Got any?
> You got quotes and references.
>
>>
>>> 2/ What is wrong? For example, MBH98 references the book "Principal
>>> Component Analysis in Meteorology and Oceanography" by Rudolph W.
>>> Preisendorfer ISBN: 9780444430144. This book states: "The first step in
>>> the PCA of [data set] Z is to center the values z[ t,x] on their
>>> averages over the t series...". MBH98 doesn't centre the vales on their
>>> averages.
>>
>> ... because there are at least eight other ways to do it, Z-ordering
>> being just one of them.
>
> Preisendorfer is the reference quoted on the subject in MBH98 itself
> [page 787 reference 25].
>
>>
>> Next?
>>
>>> MBH98 is not consistent with the PCA methodology as described in its
>>> main statistical reference.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
> Preisendorfer :
> "The first step in the PCA of [data set] Z is to center the values z
> [ t,x] on their averages over the t series... "
> MBH98 didn't centre the series (it actually de-centred them).
>
>>
>>> The result of the use of non-centred variables is well described,
>>
>> You mean centered, not non-centered.
> I meant non-centred. MBH98 used series that were not centred around their
> mean.
>
>>
>>> it emphasise (tremendously in the case of MBH98) the weight in the PCA
>>> of the variables with greater variance.
>>
>> ... only three of which are >1, thereforre all the others were rejected.
> Actually, instead of filtering noise, the way PCA was used in MBH98 only
> selected a few data series which were not representative of paleo-
> temperatures. MBH98 is not a global northern hemisphere reconstruction,
> it is a bristlecone growth curve.
>
>>
>>> Did you understand this explanation?
>>
>> Idiot.
> Your permanent use of abusive statement gives a very negative image of
> you. Why can't you reply correctly, you know that abuse is the last
> resort of a looser in a debate.
>
>
quoting mathematics with out numbers is in this case stupid. there
no context for the math. the assertions are UNSUPPORTED
josephus
emoneyjoe
Feb 7, 2013, 2:14:53 AM2/7/13
to
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 20:09:22 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 6, 7:47 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:"If you were
>right I would be able to heat my house with concentrated reflected
>IR from the local atmosphere. "
>
>Come on silly atmospheric downward IR flux has been observed by
>Pyrgeometer (clouds produce downward IR flux).
Great, did anybody make steam with
<columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 6, 7:47 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:"If you were
>right I would be able to heat my house with concentrated reflected
>IR from the local atmosphere. "
>
>Come on silly atmospheric downward IR flux has been observed by
>Pyrgeometer (clouds produce downward IR flux).
it yet? Just think, we don't have to burn
fossil fuels any more, we can use that
downward IR to provide all or energy needs.
>And i must say only to
>a denialist such as yourself would such a statement constitute a valid
>logical rebuttal for if you could build a reflector the size of the
>atmosphere i would say turn it around and make one big telescope :-).
over 300 watts per square meter?
Ten square meters focused into 100
square inches and I can boil water to make
steam 24 hours a day.
>Increasing atmospheric concentrations of co2 will increase the
>downward IR flux from the atmosphere, which delays the transfer of
>energy from the heat sink to the cold sink (a thermally insulating
>atmosphere with the green house effect)
coal any more the crisis is over.
meteorite bombardment!
The sky is falling.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 7, 2013, 2:47:30 AM2/7/13
to
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:53:41 -0600, josephus wrote:
>>> they are talking about citing Kieth in Phils work.
>>
>> Yes the 0938018124.txt email was sent by Mann to Keith Briffa, Folland
>> and Jones.
>> Why does it bothers you?
>>
>>
> no just your analysis. you are magic you can find problems with ethics
> everywhere but NEVER the theft of that data. the fact that they
> knew what the terms meant does not mean YOUR analysis is right.
> they know and you dont.
Maybe the 0938018124.txt alone is not conclusive. The context, the dates,
the persons involved, the other emails, the accompanying documents, the
graphs in the IPCC publications, all those corresponding elements draw a
very clear picture of a group of person pretending to act scientifically,
but actually acting as political activists, making their political case
by cherry the picking data they choose to publish.
I hope that the few elements that I provided here help those who want to
understand where they should look to make their own opinion on what
appears to me, and to many, as a definite lack of scientific integrity.
Nobody will prevent you from putting your finger in your ears and
chanting "no, no, no, I don't understand you".
>>> they are talking about citing Kieth in Phils work.
>>
>> Yes the 0938018124.txt email was sent by Mann to Keith Briffa, Folland
>> and Jones.
>> Why does it bothers you?
>>
>>
> no just your analysis. you are magic you can find problems with ethics
> everywhere but NEVER the theft of that data. the fact that they
> knew what the terms meant does not mean YOUR analysis is right.
> they know and you dont.
Maybe the 0938018124.txt alone is not conclusive. The context, the dates,
the persons involved, the other emails, the accompanying documents, the
graphs in the IPCC publications, all those corresponding elements draw a
very clear picture of a group of person pretending to act scientifically,
but actually acting as political activists, making their political case
by cherry the picking data they choose to publish.
I hope that the few elements that I provided here help those who want to
understand where they should look to make their own opinion on what
appears to me, and to many, as a definite lack of scientific integrity.
Nobody will prevent you from putting your finger in your ears and
chanting "no, no, no, I don't understand you".
josephus
Feb 7, 2013, 3:34:04 AM2/7/13
to
1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:
> it must be comprehended that there is no mechanism
> for "global" warming via glass "house" gasses, and
> this is simply a matter of a)
> insolation being totally differential from equator to poles, and b)
> lack of appreciation of Snell's law
> over exactly the same range of lattitude.
>
> however, CO2 seems to be clearly indictive
> of human activities, Space-bro.
>
>> There is no incontrovertible evidence that the current global-warming is
>> more than marginally influenced by human activity. 0.6�C warming in 100
>> years in nothing remarkable and decades with 0.17�C increase or decrease
>> are not unprecedented.
>> Opposite to the conclusion of the IPCC, CO2 cannot be the main driver of
>> temperatures as we are told now that sulphates can completely offset it.
>
> thus:
> finally, a God-am hypothesis;
> wonder if you had read of it.
>
>> This result could partly
>> be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small
>> number of sites (<1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a
>> worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that
>> warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to
>> 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most
>> likely to be affected by urban warming.
>
> thus:
> hm; I just assumed that there *was* a correlation
> between #hurricanesUSA and #hurricanesWorld,
> not that I am a denierist; do you have any of those numbers?...
> do you know the IPCC's characterization of UHI, yet?
>
>>> the thing about CO2
>>> -- whether or not it is a significant glass "house" gas --
>>> is that it is truly a "metric" of the work
>>> that humans impose upon the biosphere, for good & ill.
>
>>> without cogeneration of (say) hot water,
>>> PVs are horrible elements of urban heat-islanding,
>>> not the IPCC gives a floating object.
>
> thus:
> all of the problem simply disappeares, if
> one concieves of a "photon" as a quantum
> of wave-energy, propogating through space;
> taht is to say, spatially or three-dee-ally; as when,
> the photon is split into two waves,
> each of half the frequency (or energy, or "mass"),
> thence propogating outward from that half-silvered mirror.
>
> all properties of light are wavey,
> as shown by Young, except for the photo-electrical effect;
> that, also, can be considered in terms
> of a quantum of wave; it's just that
> the Copehangenskoolers don't do that,
> there is something rotten o'er theresville.
>
word sald nonsense and noise
josephus
> it must be comprehended that there is no mechanism
> for "global" warming via glass "house" gasses, and
> this is simply a matter of a)
> insolation being totally differential from equator to poles, and b)
> lack of appreciation of Snell's law
> over exactly the same range of lattitude.
>
> however, CO2 seems to be clearly indictive
> of human activities, Space-bro.
>
>> There is no incontrovertible evidence that the current global-warming is
>> more than marginally influenced by human activity. 0.6�C warming in 100
>> years in nothing remarkable and decades with 0.17�C increase or decrease
>> are not unprecedented.
>> Opposite to the conclusion of the IPCC, CO2 cannot be the main driver of
>> temperatures as we are told now that sulphates can completely offset it.
>
> thus:
> finally, a God-am hypothesis;
> wonder if you had read of it.
>
>> This result could partly
>> be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small
>> number of sites (<1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a
>> worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that
>> warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to
>> 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most
>> likely to be affected by urban warming.
>
> thus:
> hm; I just assumed that there *was* a correlation
> between #hurricanesUSA and #hurricanesWorld,
> not that I am a denierist; do you have any of those numbers?...
> do you know the IPCC's characterization of UHI, yet?
>
>>> the thing about CO2
>>> -- whether or not it is a significant glass "house" gas --
>>> is that it is truly a "metric" of the work
>>> that humans impose upon the biosphere, for good & ill.
>
>>> without cogeneration of (say) hot water,
>>> PVs are horrible elements of urban heat-islanding,
>>> not the IPCC gives a floating object.
>
> thus:
> all of the problem simply disappeares, if
> one concieves of a "photon" as a quantum
> of wave-energy, propogating through space;
> taht is to say, spatially or three-dee-ally; as when,
> the photon is split into two waves,
> each of half the frequency (or energy, or "mass"),
> thence propogating outward from that half-silvered mirror.
>
> all properties of light are wavey,
> as shown by Young, except for the photo-electrical effect;
> that, also, can be considered in terms
> of a quantum of wave; it's just that
> the Copehangenskoolers don't do that,
> there is something rotten o'er theresville.
>
word sald nonsense and noise
josephus
josephus
Feb 7, 2013, 3:45:20 AM2/7/13
to
scientists. it is ABSOLUTELY true that there is NO SUCH EVIDENCE in
any of the text, emails and other nefarious documents. it says more
about your honesty that it does about the IPCC scientists.
josephus
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Feb 7, 2013, 8:20:30 AM2/7/13
to
On Feb 6, 11:14 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:" The sky is
falling."
no chicken little, the sky is emitting downward IR. I know every time
that yellow ball in the sky get swallowed up you think the same thing,
but it returns the next day. And i know you think the same thing when
it becomes winter, but the southern hemisphere is really in summer
time. You can check it out yourself.
And yes, increasing atmospheric concentrations of co2 will cause more
downward IR flux. The IR energy leaving the system is delayed, and
the system warms.
falling."
no chicken little, the sky is emitting downward IR. I know every time
that yellow ball in the sky get swallowed up you think the same thing,
but it returns the next day. And i know you think the same thing when
it becomes winter, but the southern hemisphere is really in summer
time. You can check it out yourself.
And yes, increasing atmospheric concentrations of co2 will cause more
downward IR flux. The IR energy leaving the system is delayed, and
the system warms.
Dawlish
Feb 7, 2013, 8:28:53 AM2/7/13
to
To 8 completely independent enquiries (Is it 8? Is it more??) it drew a picture of some scientists being naive about what they write in emails, but who did nothing wrong.
Of course, people like you don't accept any of the findings of those enquiries, because none of them found what you wanted them to, pauly. True; isn't it?
erschro...@gmail.com
Feb 7, 2013, 8:54:17 AM2/7/13
to
>
> > As you can see from the transcripts, Wegman refused to reply.
>
> Ø — Without doubt Mann's hockey stick is an hoax.
Is that why 8 other published studies by other scientists show the
> > As you can see from the transcripts, Wegman refused to reply.
>
> Ø — Without doubt Mann's hockey stick is an hoax.
same thing?
Desertphile
Feb 7, 2013, 12:07:17 PM2/7/13
to
On 06 Feb 2013 21:45:51 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:09:08 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:31:32 -0700, Desertphile
> > <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 03 Feb 2013 07:39:21 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 13:26:00 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 02 Feb 2013 09:07:22 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:49:53 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 04:31:00 -0600, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
> > > > > > > Janoschka) wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> What a nice planet!!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Evidence that shows human-caused warming of the planet has not stopped:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://desertphile.org/CRUTEM4.JPG
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Evidence that this evidence is based on dubious "projections" is now
> > > > >
> > > > > It's measurements from thermometers, Shit-for-brains.
> > >
> > > > No, impossible, the attribution of a cause to the evolution of global
> > >
> > > And yet scientists measure Earth's global average temperature all the
> > > time. How do you explain that fact?
> >
> > See what I mean? LOL! Hilarious!
> What you mean is false.
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:09:08 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:31:32 -0700, Desertphile
> > <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 03 Feb 2013 07:39:21 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 13:26:00 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 02 Feb 2013 09:07:22 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:49:53 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 04:31:00 -0600, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
> > > > > > > Janoschka) wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> What a nice planet!!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Evidence that shows human-caused warming of the planet has not stopped:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://desertphile.org/CRUTEM4.JPG
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Evidence that this evidence is based on dubious "projections" is now
> > > > >
> > > > > It's measurements from thermometers, Shit-for-brains.
> > >
> > > > No, impossible, the attribution of a cause to the evolution of global
> > >
> > > And yet scientists measure Earth's global average temperature all the
> > > time. How do you explain that fact?
> >
> > See what I mean? LOL! Hilarious!
And yet all of the experts, from NASA, NOAA, MET Office, Japan's
department of climate, the NSA, the NRC, and many hundreds of other
science organizations say you are wrong. How do you explain that?
> Just using thermometer reading cannot allow to
> attribute a cause to anything.
Idiot.
--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"There was so much hand waving there [Creationism web page] that I'll call that
page up again next summer if my air conditioner fails." -- Boikat
emoneyjoe
Feb 7, 2013, 2:19:17 PM2/7/13
to
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 05:20:30 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 6, 11:14 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:" The sky is
>falling."
>
>no chicken little, the sky is emitting downward IR. I know every time
>that yellow ball in the sky get swallowed up you think the same thing,
>but it returns the next day. And i know you think the same thing when
>it becomes winter, but the southern hemisphere is really in summer
>time. You can check it out yourself.
Sure, you know everything, in a pig's ....
<columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 6, 11:14 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:" The sky is
>falling."
>
>no chicken little, the sky is emitting downward IR. I know every time
>that yellow ball in the sky get swallowed up you think the same thing,
>but it returns the next day. And i know you think the same thing when
>it becomes winter, but the southern hemisphere is really in summer
>time. You can check it out yourself.
>And yes, increasing atmospheric concentrations of co2 will cause more
>downward IR flux. The IR energy leaving the system is delayed, and
>the system warms.
and radiating more downward, and you think
that means warmer?
Maybe it is a wash.
emoneyjoe
Feb 7, 2013, 2:30:06 PM2/7/13
to
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 05:28:53 -0800 (PST), Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
What happened, the investigators
investigated the investigators?
wrote:
investigated the investigators?
AM
Feb 7, 2013, 3:02:40 PM2/7/13
to
Ya know, it's like robbers robbing you, then when you call the police
you find that they are the robbers and of course you had nothing stolen
from you. Even more, they are quite a bit upset at that you bother them
in the first place !
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Feb 7, 2013, 3:05:35 PM2/7/13
to
On Feb 7, 11:19 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 05:20:30 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 05:20:30 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
kym horsell
Feb 7, 2013, 3:13:13 PM2/7/13
to
On Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:03:13 PM UTC+11, Scout wrote:
> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hlwdjsd2-6BECA7...@news.giganews.com...
>
> > In article <B8SdnbyGHd_WJ2LN...@earthlink.com>,
>
> > josephus <dog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> OK just let GW destroy the farming group in the USA. that will light
>
> >> your stupidity. Every one must worry about WATER because the continent
>
> >> is being dry. (historically, they thought the midwest was a desert)
>
> >> desert -- very arid region.
>
> >
>
> > Latest news is that the Andean glaciers that supply much of the drinking
>
> > water for many countries in South America have shrunk 30-50% since the
>
> > 1970s.
>
> >
>
> > The wars of the 21st century are going to be fought over water and are
>
> > going to make the wars over oil look like children's games.
>
>
>
> Cool. Which means the US and Canada will be the OPEC of the world's fresh
>
> water since 20% of the world's fresh water is contained in the Great Lakes
>
> alone.
20% of freshwater? Only for engineering purposes.
The corrected factiod needs the qualifiers "surface" and "liquid".
95% of liquid freshwater is not surface water.
Even excluding glaciers and icecaps, 75% of surface freshwater is not liquid.
%q%q%q
[The appeal to competence:]
> Naive studies may be evidence of a kind, but really all they can do is
> re-inforce studies already published. If one can fit a regression
> line through some published data and it seems to show a statistically
> significant connection, and it predicts much the same thing as in
> published work, then we have evidence to accept the published work[...]
> OTOH, if [you] get a different answer [you] are [most likely in error].
[...]
You do realise that what you have described is "an appeal to authority" -
the authority in the case being some unnamed journals - and not the
scientific method.
-- Peter Webb <webbf...@optusnet.com.au>, 23 Nov 2010
> "Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hlwdjsd2-6BECA7...@news.giganews.com...
>
> > In article <B8SdnbyGHd_WJ2LN...@earthlink.com>,
>
> > josephus <dog...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Scout wrote:
>
> >> >
>
> >> >
>
> >> > "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > news:Jason-10011...@66-53-219-34.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
>
> >> >> In article <kcnshk$32j$1...@dont-email.me>, "Scout"
>
> >> >> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>
>
> >> >>> "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>> news:Jason-10011...@67-150-120-1.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
>
> >> >>> > In article <gcnue8hcl8mfctk8t...@4ax.com>, Alan
>
> >> >>> > Ferris
>
> >> >>> > <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >>> >
>
> >> >>> >> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:23:57 -0800, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason)
>
> >> >>> >> wrote:
>
> >> >>> >>
>
> >> >>> >> >In article <qemdnaoIdeFrt3LN...@posted.sonicnet>,
>
> >> >>> >> >rep...@scientology.org wrote:
>
> >> >>> >> >
>
> >
>
> >> Scout wrote:
>
> >> >
>
> >> >
>
> >> > "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > news:Jason-10011...@66-53-219-34.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
>
> >> >> In article <kcnshk$32j$1...@dont-email.me>, "Scout"
>
> >> >> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>
>
> >> >>> "Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>> news:Jason-10011...@67-150-120-1.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
>
> >> >>> > In article <gcnue8hcl8mfctk8t...@4ax.com>, Alan
>
> >> >>> > Ferris
>
> >> >>> > <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >>> >
>
> >> >>> >> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:23:57 -0800, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason)
>
> >> >>> >> wrote:
>
> >> >>> >>
>
> >> >>> >> >In article <qemdnaoIdeFrt3LN...@posted.sonicnet>,
>
> >> >>> >> >rep...@scientology.org wrote:
>
> >> >>> >> >
>
>
> >> your stupidity. Every one must worry about WATER because the continent
>
> >> is being dry. (historically, they thought the midwest was a desert)
>
> >> desert -- very arid region.
>
> >
>
> > Latest news is that the Andean glaciers that supply much of the drinking
>
> > water for many countries in South America have shrunk 30-50% since the
>
> > 1970s.
>
> >
>
> > The wars of the 21st century are going to be fought over water and are
>
> > going to make the wars over oil look like children's games.
>
>
>
> Cool. Which means the US and Canada will be the OPEC of the world's fresh
>
> water since 20% of the world's fresh water is contained in the Great Lakes
>
> alone.
20% of freshwater? Only for engineering purposes.
The corrected factiod needs the qualifiers "surface" and "liquid".
95% of liquid freshwater is not surface water.
Even excluding glaciers and icecaps, 75% of surface freshwater is not liquid.
%q%q%q
[The appeal to competence:]
> Naive studies may be evidence of a kind, but really all they can do is
> re-inforce studies already published. If one can fit a regression
> line through some published data and it seems to show a statistically
> significant connection, and it predicts much the same thing as in
> published work, then we have evidence to accept the published work[...]
> OTOH, if [you] get a different answer [you] are [most likely in error].
[...]
You do realise that what you have described is "an appeal to authority" -
the authority in the case being some unnamed journals - and not the
scientific method.
-- Peter Webb <webbf...@optusnet.com.au>, 23 Nov 2010
Dawlish
Feb 7, 2013, 3:17:56 PM2/7/13
to emon...@iglou.com
Paul Aubrin
Feb 7, 2013, 3:31:11 PM2/7/13
to
suppose that the paper conforms to it. Not at all.
This reference book says that PCA begins with the normalisation of the
data series. The MBH98 paper does not normalise the data series. It is
exactly what states as a fact the ASA Newsletter I quoted dozens of
times. It is a verified fact, by statisticians too. It is fully on topic
and well documented by cites and references.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 7, 2013, 3:49:18 PM2/7/13
to
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 01:06:27 -0600, josephus wrote:
>> Your permanent use of abusive statement gives a very negative image of
>> you. Why can't you reply correctly, you know that abuse is the last
>> resort of a looser in a debate.
>>
>>
>>
> quoting mathematics with out numbers is in this case stupid. there
> no context for the math. the assertions are UNSUPPORTED
MBH98 is based on an inappropriate use of the Principal Component
>> Your permanent use of abusive statement gives a very negative image of
>> you. Why can't you reply correctly, you know that abuse is the last
>> resort of a looser in a debate.
>>
>>
>>
> quoting mathematics with out numbers is in this case stupid. there
> no context for the math. the assertions are UNSUPPORTED
statistical analysis. This has been verified by the American Statistical
Association in a paper I referenced and quoted dozens of times in this
thread. If you don't acknowledge this as a fact, get MBH98 data series
and show us where those statisticians are wrong.
Here is a quite long quote with says basically the same thing from the
Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life
Studies of National Research Council (of National Academies)
"Spurious Principal Components
McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) demonstrated that under some conditions,
the leading principal component can exhibit a spurious trend like
appearance, which could then lead to a spurious trend in the proxy-based
reconstruction. To see how this can happen, suppose that instead of proxy
climate data, one simply used a random sample of autocorrelated time
series that did not contain a coherent signal. If these simulated proxies
are standardized as anomalies with respect to a calibration period and
used to form principal components, the first component tends to exhibit a
trend, even though the proxies themselves have no common trend.
Essentially, the first component tends to capture those proxies that, by
chance, show different values between the calibration period and the
remainder of the data. If this component is used by itself or in
conjunction with a small number of unaffected components to perform
reconstruction, the resulting temperature reconstruction may exhibit a
trend, even though the individual proxies do not. Figure 9-2 shows the
result of a simple simulation along the lines of McIntyre and
McKitrick (2003) (the computer code appears in Appendix B). In each
simulation, 50 autocorrelated time series of length 600 were constructed,
with no coherent signal. Each was centered at the mean of its last 100
values, and the first principal component was found. The figure shows the
first components from five such simulations overlaid. Principal components
have an arbitrary sign, which was chosen here to make the last 100 values
higher on average than the remainder."
[...]
"This exercise demonstrates that the baseline with respect to which
anomalies are calculated can influence principal components in
unanticipated ways. Huybers (2005), commenting on McIntyre and McKitrick
(2005a), points out that normalization also affects results, a point that
is reinforced by McIntyre and McKitrick (2005b) in their response to
Huybers. Principal components calculations are often carried out on a
correlation matrix obtained by normalizing each variable by its sample
standard deviation. Variables in different physical units clearly require
some kind of normalization to bring them to a common scale, but even
variables that are physically equivalent or normalized to a common scale
may have widely different variances. Huybers comments on tree ring
densities, which have much lower variances than widths, even after
conversion to dimensionless “standardized” form. In this case, an
argument can be made for using the variables without further
normalization. However, the higher-variance variables tend to make
correspondingly higher contributions to the principal components, so the
decision whether to equalize variances or not should be based on the
scientific considerations of the climate information represented in each
of the proxies."
Paul Aubrin
Feb 7, 2013, 3:55:07 PM2/7/13
to
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:07:17 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>> > > And yet scientists measure Earth's global average temperature all
>> > > the time. How do you explain that fact?
>> >
>> > See what I mean? LOL! Hilarious!
>
>> What you mean is false.
>
> And yet all of the experts, from NASA, NOAA, MET Office, Japan's
> department of climate, the NSA, the NRC, and many hundreds of other
> science organizations say you are wrong. How do you explain that?
I explain it easily: you pretend to represent "all the experts", you
>> > > And yet scientists measure Earth's global average temperature all
>> > > the time. How do you explain that fact?
>> >
>> > See what I mean? LOL! Hilarious!
>
>> What you mean is false.
>
> And yet all of the experts, from NASA, NOAA, MET Office, Japan's
> department of climate, the NSA, the NRC, and many hundreds of other
> science organizations say you are wrong. How do you explain that?
don't understand what I say, you don't understand what the scientific
organisms you quoted say, and on top of all that you are completely lack
any rational thinking capability.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 7, 2013, 3:59:27 PM2/7/13
to
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 02:45:20 -0600, josephus wrote:
>> Maybe the 0938018124.txt alone is not conclusive. The context, the
>> dates,
>> the persons involved, the other emails, the accompanying documents, the
>> graphs in the IPCC publications, all those corresponding elements draw
>> a very clear picture of a group of person pretending to act
>> scientifically,
>> but actually acting as political activists, making their political case
>> by cherry the picking data they choose to publish.
>>
>> I hope that the few elements that I provided here help those who want
>> to understand where they should look to make their own opinion on what
>> appears to me, and to many, as a definite lack of scientific integrity.
>> Nobody will prevent you from putting your finger in your ears and
>> chanting "no, no, no, I don't understand you".
>>
>>
> the fact is that deniers are eager to learn about illegal activities of
> scientists.
In this thread, I don't argue about the possibly illegal activities. I
>> Maybe the 0938018124.txt alone is not conclusive. The context, the
>> dates,
>> the persons involved, the other emails, the accompanying documents, the
>> graphs in the IPCC publications, all those corresponding elements draw
>> a very clear picture of a group of person pretending to act
>> scientifically,
>> but actually acting as political activists, making their political case
>> by cherry the picking data they choose to publish.
>>
>> I hope that the few elements that I provided here help those who want
>> to understand where they should look to make their own opinion on what
>> appears to me, and to many, as a definite lack of scientific integrity.
>> Nobody will prevent you from putting your finger in your ears and
>> chanting "no, no, no, I don't understand you".
>>
>>
> the fact is that deniers are eager to learn about illegal activities of
> scientists.
mentioned non ethical, activities, and I brought a lot of factual
elements I won't repeat here.
erschro...@gmail.com
Feb 7, 2013, 4:32:38 PM2/7/13
to
erschro...@gmail.com
Feb 7, 2013, 4:40:52 PM2/7/13
to
different data and methods. More than two dozen scientific papers,
using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records,
have produced reconstructions supporting the broad consensus shown in
the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the
pre-20th century "shaft" appears. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment
Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or
longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that
Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the
highest in at least the past 1,300 years. Ten or more subsequent
reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these
general conclusions."
"At the end of April Science published a reconstruction by J.
Oerlemans based on glacier length records from different parts of the
world, and found consistent independent evidence for the period from
1600 to 1990 supporting other reconstructions regarding magnitude and
timing of global warming.[154] In May the University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research advised media about a detailed analysis by Eugene
Wahl and Caspar Ammann, first presented at the American Geophysical
Union’s December 2004 meeting in San Francisco, which used their own
code to replicate the MBH results, and found the MBH method to be
robust even with modifications. Their work contradicted the claims by
McIntyre and McKitrick about high 15th century global temperatures and
allegations of methodological bias towards a hockey stick outcomes,
and they concluded that the criticisms of the hockey stick graph were
groundless"
"Various criticisms of the MBH statistical methods were discussed in
the context of more recent research which explored ways of addressing
these problems, and showed greater amplitude of temperature variations
over 1000 to 2000 years. Recent papers cited included Wahl & Ammann
2006 (in press). On McIntyre and McKitrick's criticism of principal
component analysis as tending to bias the shape of the
reconstructions, it found that "In practice, this method, though not
recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of
hemispheric mean temperature", and reconstructions using other methods
were qualitatively similar. Some of the criticisms of validation
techniques were more valid than others, these issues and the effect on
robustness of the choice of proxies contributed to the committee's
view of increased uncertainties. They called for further research into
methods and a search for more proxies for earlier periods.
At the press conference the three NRC panellists said they found no
evidence supporting the allegations of inappropriate behaviour such as
data manipulation, or "anything other than an honest attempt to
construct a data analysis procedure". Bloomfield as a statistician
considered all the choices of data processing and methods to have been
"quite reasonable" in a "first of its kind study". He said "I would
not have been embarrassed by that work at the time if I'd been
involved in it". In response to a question from Edward Wegman on the
MBH use of principal components analysis, Bloomfield said this had
been reviewed by the committee along with other statistical issues,
and "while the issues are real, they had a very minimal effect, not a
material effect on the final reconstruction."
emoneyjoe
Feb 7, 2013, 8:17:10 PM2/7/13
to
try watching Dragnet for a while.
emoneyjoe
Feb 7, 2013, 8:20:52 PM2/7/13
to
increases as the 4th power of the increase,
while any GHG warming is not even a
square function.
You and all the warmies need to learn
a little math, taught by a geologist.
emoneyjoe
Feb 7, 2013, 8:32:35 PM2/7/13
to
water or aquifers, there is no way for
one country to get the water from another
country.
All water is liquid, there is very little
year-round ice in the US, and not
many people in Greenland, Antarctica,
Northern Canada, Alaska or Siberia.
The western hemisphere is in
pretty good shape for water.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Feb 7, 2013, 9:09:58 PM2/7/13
to
new balance point based on the changes in energy exchange, due to the
changes in atmospheric concentrations of green house gasses.
gordo
Feb 8, 2013, 12:35:43 AM2/8/13
to
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:32:35 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:
Who told you that?
"Low water levels alarm experts"
This is the largest body of fresh water on the planet.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/story/2013/02/06/wdr-great-lakes-water-levels.html
There is plenty of moisture hitting the east of Canada and the US. It
will all be gone in a few weeks of the spring. Of course this is
future flooding.
wrote:
"Low water levels alarm experts"
This is the largest body of fresh water on the planet.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/story/2013/02/06/wdr-great-lakes-water-levels.html
There is plenty of moisture hitting the east of Canada and the US. It
will all be gone in a few weeks of the spring. Of course this is
future flooding.
emoneyjoe
Feb 8, 2013, 1:12:58 AM2/8/13
to
difference in temperature too, in the
high troposphere it is cold.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Feb 8, 2013, 1:18:06 AM2/8/13
to
On Feb 7, 10:12 pm, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 18:09:58 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 18:09:58 -0800 (PST), columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
lower altitude.
emoneyjoe
Feb 8, 2013, 2:11:05 AM2/8/13
to
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 21:35:43 -0800, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca.remove>
wrote:
http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=pah&gage=ciri2
There you see 830,000 cubic feet a second
emptying into the Mississippi and adding to it's
flow.
There could be a lot of that water stored
or piped to somewhere and used in irrigation,
but maybe water isn't valuable enough to
build the pipe.
wrote:
There you see 830,000 cubic feet a second
emptying into the Mississippi and adding to it's
flow.
There could be a lot of that water stored
or piped to somewhere and used in irrigation,
but maybe water isn't valuable enough to
build the pipe.
josephus
Feb 8, 2013, 2:48:20 AM2/8/13
to
how do those proxies behave. before 1930 or 1940 they match and
correlate with the instrument readings. after that point the rules
for converting tree data to temperature change radically. they
diverge from Instrument Data. I personally would stop using Tree
proxies after 1940. why would you have to smooth the curve to fit
instrument data?
that is the heart of M&M's matrix math. the conversion of tree
proxies to temperature proxies. I have never seen any math about
modern extensions of tree proxies. the fact that the math is ADHOC
is not really adequate to challenge. the conversion from X to Y is
a known heuristic problem. that fact alone makes the M&M math a lot
of to do about nothing.
because there is a problem with TREE proxies after 1940, there is room
to quibble about method and the method M&M are using is like
complaining that a bandaid is not a bandage. I believe, and they do not
post any data to assert that math, I believe that they are complaining
about residual values in a matrix.
which is why the reviewer said it did not apply to the data,
josphus
emoneyjoe
Feb 8, 2013, 3:04:34 AM2/8/13
to
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 01:48:20 -0600, josephus <dog...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
If tree ring data has flaws consistent
over all periods, that may mean that
recorded data does not show warming
as much.
It is amazing that such things are
as accurate as they are.
wrote:
over all periods, that may mean that
recorded data does not show warming
as much.
It is amazing that such things are
as accurate as they are.
Last Post
Feb 8, 2013, 3:37:27 AM2/8/13
to
> > > Well of course you can be absolutely sure that when Wegman holds a
> > > speech at a conference he organized himself about his own work, then
> > > he's not going to tell everybody that he was wrong, is he?
> > > Have you read the Ammann and Wahl papers yet? They explore specifically
> > > and in great detail the criticisms made by McIntyre and McKitrick .. Not
> > > only are they able to reproduce the MBH results, they show that some of
> > > the objections raised by MM are themselves based on an incorrect
> > > application of statistical methods.
> > > Why is the A&W analysis relevant? The answer is that Wegman made exactly
> > > the same mistake in the analysis he presented at the famous
> > > sub-committee hearings as McIntyre and McKitrick did in their paper. The
> > > mistake was spotted by Professor Ritson, who attempted to get Wegman to
> > > explain this, see e-mail transcripts at
> > >http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/house06/RitsonWegmanReq...
> > > As you can see from the transcripts, Wegman refused to reply.
> > Ø — Without doubt Mann's hockey stick is an hoax.
> Is that why 8 other published studies by other
> scientists show the same thing
Ø — Copy cats
> > > speech at a conference he organized himself about his own work, then
> > > he's not going to tell everybody that he was wrong, is he?
> > > Have you read the Ammann and Wahl papers yet? They explore specifically
> > > and in great detail the criticisms made by McIntyre and McKitrick .. Not
> > > only are they able to reproduce the MBH results, they show that some of
> > > the objections raised by MM are themselves based on an incorrect
> > > application of statistical methods.
> > > Why is the A&W analysis relevant? The answer is that Wegman made exactly
> > > the same mistake in the analysis he presented at the famous
> > > sub-committee hearings as McIntyre and McKitrick did in their paper. The
> > > mistake was spotted by Professor Ritson, who attempted to get Wegman to
> > > explain this, see e-mail transcripts at
> > >http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/house06/RitsonWegmanReq...
> > > As you can see from the transcripts, Wegman refused to reply.
> > Ø — Without doubt Mann's hockey stick is an hoax.
> Is that why 8 other published studies by other
> scientists show the same thing
I read the paper when it first came out.
I saw the big hole where the Mediaeval
warm period should have been and where
the blade of the hockey stick should not
have been.
Ø — Lloyd you can never win whatever/wherever.
gordo
Feb 8, 2013, 4:38:25 AM2/8/13
to
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 02:11:05 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
You probably mean well and I will give you that.I posted a good site
for anyone to learn about water from an expert Dr. Peter Gleick.
The water in the mighty Mississip is going up and down like a toilet
seat during tv commercials and a few pipes are not the answer to
agricultural challenges because of global warming.
for anyone to learn about water from an expert Dr. Peter Gleick.
The water in the mighty Mississip is going up and down like a toilet
seat during tv commercials and a few pipes are not the answer to
agricultural challenges because of global warming.
emoneyjoe
Feb 8, 2013, 11:59:46 AM2/8/13
to
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 01:38:25 -0800, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca.remove>
You missed the point, the Ohio River,
at times, may have the most water flowing,
compare the above 830,000 cubic feet
per second with the water flowing into
Lake Mead and through Hoover Dam
of only 115,000 feet per second.
http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=vef&gage=cdca3
at times, may have the most water flowing,
compare the above 830,000 cubic feet
per second with the water flowing into
Lake Mead and through Hoover Dam
of only 115,000 feet per second.
http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=vef&gage=cdca3
Paul Aubrin
Feb 8, 2013, 12:34:53 PM2/8/13
to
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 13:32:38 -0800, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The Preisendofer is the statistical reference cited by MBH98. You would
>> suppose that the paper conforms to it. Not at all.
>> This reference book says that PCA begins with the normalisation of the
>> data series. The MBH98 paper does not normalise the data series. It is
>> exactly what states as a fact the ASA Newsletter I quoted dozens of
>> times. It is a verified fact, by statisticians too. It is fully on
>> topic and well documented by cites and references.
>
> As are statisticians saying MBH did nothing wrong with the data.
"The statisticians" reported objectively that a PCA analysis begins by
>> The Preisendofer is the statistical reference cited by MBH98. You would
>> suppose that the paper conforms to it. Not at all.
>> This reference book says that PCA begins with the normalisation of the
>> data series. The MBH98 paper does not normalise the data series. It is
>> exactly what states as a fact the ASA Newsletter I quoted dozens of
>> times. It is a verified fact, by statisticians too. It is fully on
>> topic and well documented by cites and references.
>
> As are statisticians saying MBH did nothing wrong with the data.
normalising the data series, exactly what is mentioned in the Preisdorfer
statistical reference of MBH98, and unlike what is done in MBH98.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 8, 2013, 12:55:21 PM2/8/13
to
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 01:48:20 -0600, josephus wrote:
> about M&M and their arguments. WHAT is a anomaly? a proxy. and
> how do those proxies behave. before 1930 or 1940 they match and
> correlate with the instrument readings. after that point the rules
> for converting tree data to temperature change radically. they
> diverge from
> Instrument Data. I personally would stop using Tree proxies after
> 1940. why would you have to smooth the curve to fit instrument data?
If the tree proxies correlate with temperature only on selective periods,
> about M&M and their arguments. WHAT is a anomaly? a proxy. and
> how do those proxies behave. before 1930 or 1940 they match and
> correlate with the instrument readings. after that point the rules
> for converting tree data to temperature change radically. they
> diverge from
> Instrument Data. I personally would stop using Tree proxies after
> 1940. why would you have to smooth the curve to fit instrument data?
how do we know that periods of discrepancies didn't occur previously in
the past, and thus invalidate the whole temperature reconstructions? This
is a very serious problem, why hide it instead of trying to resolve it?
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Feb 8, 2013, 1:14:12 PM2/8/13
to
On Feb 8, 9:55 am, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:""
Round and round it goes, but all the while, you cant ignore all the
links on file.
Information about earth's atmosphere.
http://www.mnsu.edu/weather/upper/500temp.html
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/
http://csmarts.colorado.edu/science.htm
DANDE
Drag and Atmospheric Neutral Density Explorer
3 examples of research using the term "Insulating" or "insulation"
properties of an atmosphere.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.2931.pdf
On the Emergent Spectra of Hot Protoplanet Collision Afterglows
“This is the second magma ocean phase, and this time the freshly
molten planet is able to retain its high temperature over much longer
timescales, due to the insulating effects of the outgassed atmosphere”
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/735/2/72/pdf/0004-637X_735_2_72.pdf
EFFECTS OF STELLAR FLUX ON TIDALLY LOCKED TERRESTRIAL PLANETS:
DEGREE-1 MANTLE CONVECTION AND LOCAL MAGMA PONDS
“This simple model does not treat internal frictional tidal heating or
atmospheric heat transport or insulation.”
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/zircon/Valley2002Cool_Early_Earth.pdf
A cool early Earth
“Although these events surely caused massive melting before 4.45 Ga,
estimates of surface temperatures after 4.45 Ga depend critically on
the magnitudes of meteorite bombardment and atmospheric insulation,
which are uncertain.”
Round and round it goes, but all the while, you cant ignore all the
links on file.
Information about earth's atmosphere.
http://www.mnsu.edu/weather/upper/500temp.html
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/
http://csmarts.colorado.edu/science.htm
DANDE
Drag and Atmospheric Neutral Density Explorer
3 examples of research using the term "Insulating" or "insulation"
properties of an atmosphere.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.2931.pdf
On the Emergent Spectra of Hot Protoplanet Collision Afterglows
“This is the second magma ocean phase, and this time the freshly
molten planet is able to retain its high temperature over much longer
timescales, due to the insulating effects of the outgassed atmosphere”
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/735/2/72/pdf/0004-637X_735_2_72.pdf
EFFECTS OF STELLAR FLUX ON TIDALLY LOCKED TERRESTRIAL PLANETS:
DEGREE-1 MANTLE CONVECTION AND LOCAL MAGMA PONDS
“This simple model does not treat internal frictional tidal heating or
atmospheric heat transport or insulation.”
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/zircon/Valley2002Cool_Early_Earth.pdf
A cool early Earth
“Although these events surely caused massive melting before 4.45 Ga,
estimates of surface temperatures after 4.45 Ga depend critically on
the magnitudes of meteorite bombardment and atmospheric insulation,
which are uncertain.”
Paul Aubrin
Feb 8, 2013, 1:47:02 PM2/8/13
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:33:22 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> On 02 Feb 2013 20:46:14 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:20:56 -0600, josephus wrote:
>>
>> > but that letter does not properly say what exactly the mathematical
>> > problem was.
>
>> The ASA newsletter is extremely explicit:
>
> ... which reported on what the Heartland Institude cult asserted, and
> which the ASA stated is wrong.
>
> ASA:
> http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
Basically, this document says that the ASA acknowledges that there is an
impropriate use of PCA analysis in MBH98. Here is what your document says:
"At the core of the controversy is an incorrect use by
Mann et al. of principal components (PCs). Ed gave a brief
overview of PC analysis, which uses the eigenvalues and
eigenvectors of the sample covariances of a data matrix
X. However as most commonly applied in large data
sets, the actual calculation begins with a singular value
decomposition of X itself, after subtracting the sample
mean vector. A typical analysis by Mann et al. used a com-
plete data record from 1902-1980 as a training data set
to reconstruct temperatures from proxies for 1400-1995.
However, the sample means they subtracted were based
only on the data from 1902-1980, instead of the full series
1400-1995. This induced a bias in the first PC, and also
biased the variances in a direction which gave greater
weight to the first PC than a correct analysis would have
done."
What those statisticians state above is a well know property of PCA
analysis applied to Mann's work.
The NRC basically acknowledged the validity of the objections in MM05a/b.
> On 02 Feb 2013 20:46:14 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:20:56 -0600, josephus wrote:
>>
>> > but that letter does not properly say what exactly the mathematical
>> > problem was.
>
>> The ASA newsletter is extremely explicit:
>
> ... which reported on what the Heartland Institude cult asserted, and
> which the ASA stated is wrong.
>
> ASA:
> http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
Basically, this document says that the ASA acknowledges that there is an
impropriate use of PCA analysis in MBH98. Here is what your document says:
"At the core of the controversy is an incorrect use by
Mann et al. of principal components (PCs). Ed gave a brief
overview of PC analysis, which uses the eigenvalues and
eigenvectors of the sample covariances of a data matrix
X. However as most commonly applied in large data
sets, the actual calculation begins with a singular value
decomposition of X itself, after subtracting the sample
mean vector. A typical analysis by Mann et al. used a com-
plete data record from 1902-1980 as a training data set
to reconstruct temperatures from proxies for 1400-1995.
However, the sample means they subtracted were based
only on the data from 1902-1980, instead of the full series
1400-1995. This induced a bias in the first PC, and also
biased the variances in a direction which gave greater
weight to the first PC than a correct analysis would have
done."
What those statisticians state above is a well know property of PCA
analysis applied to Mann's work.
The NRC basically acknowledged the validity of the objections in MM05a/b.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 8, 2013, 1:55:45 PM2/8/13
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:33:43 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>> > Let me guess you would have us believe that Heartland and Wegman
>> > are reliable and HONEST.
>
>> It doesn't matter who said it.
>
> Yes, it does.
No it doesn't. It is explained here why:
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b240PGCMwV0#t=38s
>> > Let me guess you would have us believe that Heartland and Wegman
>> > are reliable and HONEST.
>
>> It doesn't matter who said it.
>
> Yes, it does.
No it doesn't. It is explained here why:
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b240PGCMwV0#t=38s
Paul Aubrin
Feb 8, 2013, 1:59:22 PM2/8/13
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:35:24 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>> I introduced, myself, this link in the discussion. Dear Desert first
>> shrieked saying it was the Wegman report.
>
> No, I did not. I said Wegman made the false assertions, Shit-for-
So, it was a diversion, to try to hide that I was right and you were
wrong.
I cite this ASA newsletter, which describes exactly what is wrong in
MBH98 use of the PCA analysis. Instead of commenting on the evidence I
bring in the discussion, you try a diversion? That's not really fair from
you.
>> I introduced, myself, this link in the discussion. Dear Desert first
>> shrieked saying it was the Wegman report.
>
> No, I did not. I said Wegman made the false assertions, Shit-for-
So, it was a diversion, to try to hide that I was right and you were
wrong.
I cite this ASA newsletter, which describes exactly what is wrong in
MBH98 use of the PCA analysis. Instead of commenting on the evidence I
bring in the discussion, you try a diversion? That's not really fair from
you.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 8, 2013, 2:01:58 PM2/8/13
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:42:13 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>> Which URL do you mean? The one provided by Desertphile doesn't work? I
>> didn't check it.
>
> You haven't even read the ASA's newsletter, Shit-for-brains.
I read it, and even I quoted it. Up to now, you failed to find a valid
answer to this quote. Tom tried, with his debunked Ritson paper and
failed too.
>> Which URL do you mean? The one provided by Desertphile doesn't work? I
>> didn't check it.
>
> You haven't even read the ASA's newsletter, Shit-for-brains.
I read it, and even I quoted it. Up to now, you failed to find a valid
answer to this quote. Tom tried, with his debunked Ritson paper and
failed too.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 8, 2013, 2:04:16 PM2/8/13
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:41:30 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> On 02 Feb 2013 22:33:09 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 21:07:24 -0600, josephus wrote:
>
>> > the paper by WEGMAN was shown to be nonsense.
>
>> No it was not shown to be nonsense. The Wegman report was suspected to
>> contain plagiarized text (from Raymond S. Bradley one of the 3 author
>> of MBH98). Bradley is not known to have written nonsense (even though
>> he is suspected to have borrowed himself some parts of his books from a
>> previous author).
>
> And Wegman's idiot paper is wrong "retracted." All of the scientists on
> the planet also said Wegman is wrong.
The ASA Newsletter states exactly the same flaw in the same terms. Anyone
learn in statistics, or willing to get some information on PCA analysis
can confirm that this ASA statement is true. It was confirmed by the NRC.
> On 02 Feb 2013 22:33:09 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 21:07:24 -0600, josephus wrote:
>
>> > the paper by WEGMAN was shown to be nonsense.
>
>> No it was not shown to be nonsense. The Wegman report was suspected to
>> contain plagiarized text (from Raymond S. Bradley one of the 3 author
>> of MBH98). Bradley is not known to have written nonsense (even though
>> he is suspected to have borrowed himself some parts of his books from a
>> previous author).
>
> And Wegman's idiot paper is wrong "retracted." All of the scientists on
> the planet also said Wegman is wrong.
The ASA Newsletter states exactly the same flaw in the same terms. Anyone
learn in statistics, or willing to get some information on PCA analysis
can confirm that this ASA statement is true. It was confirmed by the NRC.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Feb 8, 2013, 2:11:39 PM2/8/13
to
On Feb 7, 9:07 am, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> On 06 Feb 2013 21:45:51 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:09:08 -0700, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:31:32 -0700, Desertphile
> > > <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 03 Feb 2013 07:39:21 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 13:26:00 -0700, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 02 Feb 2013 09:07:22 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:49:53 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 04:31:00 -0600, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
> > > > > > > > Janoschka) wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >> What a nice planet!!!
>
> > > > > > > > Evidence that shows human-caused warming of the planet has not stopped:
>
> > > > > > > >http://desertphile.org/CRUTEM4.JPG
>
> > > > > > > Evidence that this evidence is based on dubious "projections" is now
>
> > > > > > It's measurements from thermometers, Shit-for-brains.
>
> > > > > No, impossible, the attribution of a cause to the evolution of global
> > attribute a cause to anything.
>
> Idiot.
>
> --
> Nemo me impune lacessit.
> "There was so much hand waving there [Creationism web page] that I'll call that
> page up again next summer if my air conditioner fails." -- Boikat
He is kind of like those british tabloids, just can keep going on,
attempting judge others on ethics, but never admitting the rational
for using the information to make such a judgement lack ethics and
good judgment.
> On 06 Feb 2013 21:45:51 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> > On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:09:08 -0700, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:31:32 -0700, Desertphile
> > > <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 03 Feb 2013 07:39:21 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 13:26:00 -0700, Desertphile <Desertph...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 02 Feb 2013 09:07:22 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:49:53 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 04:31:00 -0600, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
> > > > > > > > Janoschka) wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >> What a nice planet!!!
>
> > > > > > > > Evidence that shows human-caused warming of the planet has not stopped:
>
> > > > > > > >http://desertphile.org/CRUTEM4.JPG
>
> > > > > > > Evidence that this evidence is based on dubious "projections" is now
>
> > > > > > It's measurements from thermometers, Shit-for-brains.
>
> > > > > No, impossible, the attribution of a cause to the evolution of global
>
> > > > And yet scientists measure Earth's global average temperature all the
> > > > time. How do you explain that fact?
>
> > > See what I mean? LOL! Hilarious!
> > What you mean is false.
>
> And yet all of the experts, from NASA, NOAA, MET Office, Japan's
> department of climate, the NSA, the NRC, and many hundreds of other
> science organizations say you are wrong. How do you explain that?
>
> > Just using thermometer reading cannot allow to
> > > > And yet scientists measure Earth's global average temperature all the
> > > > time. How do you explain that fact?
>
> > > See what I mean? LOL! Hilarious!
> > What you mean is false.
>
> And yet all of the experts, from NASA, NOAA, MET Office, Japan's
> department of climate, the NSA, the NRC, and many hundreds of other
> science organizations say you are wrong. How do you explain that?
>
> > attribute a cause to anything.
>
> Idiot.
>
> --
> Nemo me impune lacessit.
> "There was so much hand waving there [Creationism web page] that I'll call that
> page up again next summer if my air conditioner fails." -- Boikat
He is kind of like those british tabloids, just can keep going on,
attempting judge others on ethics, but never admitting the rational
for using the information to make such a judgement lack ethics and
good judgment.
SaPeIsMa
Feb 8, 2013, 2:11:01 PM2/8/13
to
"josephus" <dog...@earthlink.net> LIED REPEATEDLY in message
news:paWdnVB22YKSzY7M...@earthlink.com...
> >
> I have been looking at your posts. you seem to be a sophisticated half
> truth merchant.
That's your first lie
But then when you can't argue the message, you need to attack the meesenger.
> AGW is the thing generated by deniers.
That's your 2nd lie
The IPCC report and everythign that followed was ALL ABOUT alleged AGW
> there is NO THEORY of AGW.
That is your 3rd lie
No one claimed there was a "theory of AGW"
Except you with that strawman argument.
> AGW (which maybe real) is still a strawman argument.
And that is your 4th lie
The AGW crowd has been trying to justify all kinds of taxes and restrictions
on the claim that
Human CAUSED Anthropogenic Global Warming would have ALL kinds of dire
consequences, such as:
- rising ocean levels with Pacific Islands disappearing under water
- Ice caps melting and polar bears drowning
etc
But thank you for the opportunity to demonstrate what a dishonest piece of
work you are..
Typical of the AGW crowd trying to blame others for their complete
failure.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 8, 2013, 2:40:12 PM2/8/13
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:42:41 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>> What you say is so confused.
>> Could you provide the references needed to understand what you say?
>
> Here you go:
>
> ASA: http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
This ASA Newsletter says: ""At the core of the controversy is an
>> What you say is so confused.
>> Could you provide the references needed to understand what you say?
>
> Here you go:
>
> ASA: http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
This ASA Newsletter says: ""At the core of the controversy is an
incorrect use by Mann et al. of principal components (PCs)."
Is there something you don't understand in this simple sentence?
Paul Aubrin
Feb 8, 2013, 2:45:10 PM2/8/13
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:43:19 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> Nobody claime dit is, Shit-for-brains. Wegman's assertions reported in
> the ASA's newsletters were refuted and debunked.
>
> ASA:
> http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
No. The problem with the hocky stick reconstruction is not stated in the
affirmative mood: "At the core of the controversy is an incorrect use by
Mann et al. of principal components (PCs)". And it will never be
debunked, since it is an incontrovertible truth. This proves my initial
point, meanwhile you repeatedly imply something about this paper that you
are unable to substantiate.
> Nobody claime dit is, Shit-for-brains. Wegman's assertions reported in
> the ASA's newsletters were refuted and debunked.
>
> ASA:
> http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
No. The problem with the hocky stick reconstruction is not stated in the
affirmative mood: "At the core of the controversy is an incorrect use by
Mann et al. of principal components (PCs)". And it will never be
debunked, since it is an incontrovertible truth. This proves my initial
point, meanwhile you repeatedly imply something about this paper that you
are unable to substantiate.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 8, 2013, 2:48:04 PM2/8/13
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:40:00 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>> Are you saying that the American Statistical Association publishes
>> nonsense? You are a funny guy.
>
> The ASA said the claims are wrong, Shit-for-brains.
>
> ASA: http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
It says: "At the core of the controversy is an incorrect use by Mann et
al. of principal components (PCs). The correctness of this previous
sentence has been shown beyond any doubt.
>> Are you saying that the American Statistical Association publishes
>> nonsense? You are a funny guy.
>
> The ASA said the claims are wrong, Shit-for-brains.
>
> ASA: http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
It says: "At the core of the controversy is an incorrect use by Mann et
al. of principal components (PCs). The correctness of this previous
sentence has been shown beyond any doubt.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 8, 2013, 2:52:48 PM2/8/13
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 12:33:41 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> ... which is a report on what the Heartland Insititude cult claims: the
> QASA says it's bullshit, as you know.
>
> ASA: http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
"At the core of the controversy *is* (emphasis added by me) an
*incorrect* *use* *by Mann et al*. of *principal components* (PCs).
The incorrect use is proven beyond doubt: a few data series are so much
emphasised in the failed PCA to the point that the reconstruction is
nearly nothing but a local bristlecone proxy data series.
> ... which is a report on what the Heartland Insititude cult claims: the
> QASA says it's bullshit, as you know.
>
> ASA: http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
"At the core of the controversy *is* (emphasis added by me) an
*incorrect* *use* *by Mann et al*. of *principal components* (PCs).
The incorrect use is proven beyond doubt: a few data series are so much
emphasised in the failed PCA to the point that the reconstruction is
nearly nothing but a local bristlecone proxy data series.
Dawlish
Feb 8, 2013, 3:03:32 PM2/8/13
to
Paul Aubrin
Feb 8, 2013, 3:08:26 PM2/8/13
to
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:33:29 -0800, Last Post wrote:
>> Well of course you can be absolutely sure that when Wegman holds a
>>
>> speech at a conference he organized himself about his own work, then
>>
>> he's not going to tell everybody that he was wrong, is he?
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you read the Ammann and Wahl papers yet? They explore specifically
>>
>> and in great detail the criticisms made by McIntyre and McKitrick ..
>> Not
>>
>> only are they able to reproduce the MBH results, they show that some of
>>
>> the objections raised by MM are themselves based on an incorrect
>>
>> application of statistical methods.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why is the A&W analysis relevant? The answer is that Wegman made
>> exactly
>> the same mistake in the analysis he presented at the famous
>> sub-committee hearings as McIntyre and McKitrick did in their paper.
>> The
>> mistake was spotted by Professor Ritson, who attempted to get Wegman to
>> explain this, see e-mail transcripts at
>> http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/house06/
RitsonWegmanRequests.pdf
>> Well of course you can be absolutely sure that when Wegman holds a
>>
>> speech at a conference he organized himself about his own work, then
>>
>> he's not going to tell everybody that he was wrong, is he?
>>
>>
>>
>> Have you read the Ammann and Wahl papers yet? They explore specifically
>>
>> and in great detail the criticisms made by McIntyre and McKitrick ..
>> Not
>>
>> only are they able to reproduce the MBH results, they show that some of
>>
>> the objections raised by MM are themselves based on an incorrect
>>
>> application of statistical methods.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why is the A&W analysis relevant? The answer is that Wegman made
>> exactly
>> the same mistake in the analysis he presented at the famous
>> sub-committee hearings as McIntyre and McKitrick did in their paper.
>> The
>> mistake was spotted by Professor Ritson, who attempted to get Wegman to
>> explain this, see e-mail transcripts at
>> http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/house06/
It lead to this answer:
REPLY TO RITSON:
“COMMENT ON “HOCKEY STICKS, PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS AND
SPURIOUS SIGNIFICANCE” BY S. MCINTYRE AND R. MCKITRICK"
"Ritson’s Comment [Ritson, 2005] exhibits pervasive misunderstandings and
misrepresentations of both our article [McIntyre and McKitrick 2005a],
(“MM05a” herein) and Mann et al. [1998] (“MBH98”), making his analysis
pointless and incorrect.
Ritson incorrectly concluded that the purpose of principal components (PC)
analysis in MBH98 was to simplify the “complexity” of the data set to
obtain a “history”."
Follow 7 pages of detailed refutations of Ritson's paper and one page of
references.
I am sorry to say you that the arguments in this reply appear pertinent
and compelling while the Ritson paper is unclear.
[I gave the references to those two papers previously in this thread].
>> As you can see from the transcripts, Wegman refused to reply.
>
> Ø — Without doubt Mann's hockey stick is an hoax.
was well aware of the defects of his work.
I understand that occasional errors can plague scientific papers, in
which case they must be revised or retired. The attack of the person who
happened to put in evidence the problem is a serious presumption against
the attacker.
gordo
Feb 8, 2013, 3:14:17 PM2/8/13
to
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 11:59:46 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
I get the point that there is water in a river that you think you can
take out and send somewhere else. I also know that water schemes are
based upon getting someone else to pay for them.
take out and send somewhere else. I also know that water schemes are
based upon getting someone else to pay for them.
Desertphile
Feb 8, 2013, 4:54:46 PM2/8/13
to
On 07 Feb 2013 20:55:07 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:07:17 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 06 Feb 2013 21:45:51 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:09:08 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:31:32 -0700, Desertphile
> > > > <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 03 Feb 2013 07:39:21 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 13:26:00 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
No.
Every single Earth Sciences science organization on the planet that
has issued a formal statement on the subject has stated you are wrong.
Does that fact really not cause you any worry at all concerning your
mental health?
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 10:07:17 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 06 Feb 2013 21:45:51 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:09:08 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:31:32 -0700, Desertphile
> > > > <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 03 Feb 2013 07:39:21 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 13:26:00 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 02 Feb 2013 09:07:22 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:49:53 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 04:31:00 -0600, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
> > > > > > > > > Janoschka) wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> What a nice planet!!!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Evidence that shows human-caused warming of the planet has not stopped:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://desertphile.org/CRUTEM4.JPG
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Evidence that this evidence is based on dubious "projections" is now
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's measurements from thermometers, Shit-for-brains.
> > > > >
> > > > > > No, impossible, the attribution of a cause to the evolution of global
> > > > > And yet scientists measure Earth's global average temperature all the
> > > > > time. How do you explain that fact?
> > > > See what I mean? LOL! Hilarious!
> > > What you mean is false.
> > And yet all of the experts, from NASA, NOAA, MET Office, Japan's
> > department of climate, the NSA, the NRC, and many hundreds of other
> > science organizations say you are wrong. How do you explain that?
> > > Just using thermometer reading cannot allow to
> > > attribute a cause to anything.
> > Idiot.
> I explain it easily: you pretend to represent "all the experts"
> > > > > > > On 02 Feb 2013 09:07:22 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:49:53 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, 01 Feb 2013 04:31:00 -0600, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
> > > > > > > > > Janoschka) wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> What a nice planet!!!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Evidence that shows human-caused warming of the planet has not stopped:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://desertphile.org/CRUTEM4.JPG
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Evidence that this evidence is based on dubious "projections" is now
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's measurements from thermometers, Shit-for-brains.
> > > > >
> > > > > > No, impossible, the attribution of a cause to the evolution of global
> > > > > And yet scientists measure Earth's global average temperature all the
> > > > > time. How do you explain that fact?
> > > > See what I mean? LOL! Hilarious!
> > > What you mean is false.
> > And yet all of the experts, from NASA, NOAA, MET Office, Japan's
> > department of climate, the NSA, the NRC, and many hundreds of other
> > science organizations say you are wrong. How do you explain that?
> > > Just using thermometer reading cannot allow to
> > > attribute a cause to anything.
> > Idiot.
No.
Every single Earth Sciences science organization on the planet that
has issued a formal statement on the subject has stated you are wrong.
Does that fact really not cause you any worry at all concerning your
mental health?
Desertphile
Feb 8, 2013, 4:54:51 PM2/8/13
to
> He is kind of like those british tabloids, just can keep going on,
> attempting judge others on ethics, but never admitting the rational
> for using the information to make such a judgement lack ethics and
> good judgment.
I am baffled over how it is possible for a human being to insist
> attempting judge others on ethics, but never admitting the rational
> for using the information to make such a judgement lack ethics and
> good judgment.
something is true even after seeing the massive weight of evidence
that shows that belief is false. It is so common that it isn't merely
a matter of pathology: there is something wrong with humanity itself.
Desertphile
Feb 8, 2013, 4:54:56 PM2/8/13
to
On 07 Feb 2013 20:49:18 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 01:06:27 -0600, josephus wrote:
>
> >> Your permanent use of abusive statement gives a very negative image of
> >> you. Why can't you reply correctly, you know that abuse is the last
> >> resort of a looser in a debate.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > quoting mathematics with out numbers is in this case stupid. there
> > no context for the math. the assertions are UNSUPPORTED
> MBH98 is based on an inappropriate use of the Principal Component
> statistical analysis.
Funny how no statistician "knows" that astonishing "fact" of yours.
> This has been verified by the American Statistical
> Association in a paper I referenced and quoted dozens of times in this
> thread
... wherein the ASA stated the exact opposite of what you claimed they
stated.
ASA:
http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
Memory loss medication:
http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_standard_prescriptions.asp
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 01:06:27 -0600, josephus wrote:
>
> >> Your permanent use of abusive statement gives a very negative image of
> >> you. Why can't you reply correctly, you know that abuse is the last
> >> resort of a looser in a debate.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > quoting mathematics with out numbers is in this case stupid. there
> > no context for the math. the assertions are UNSUPPORTED
> MBH98 is based on an inappropriate use of the Principal Component
> statistical analysis.
Funny how no statistician "knows" that astonishing "fact" of yours.
> This has been verified by the American Statistical
> Association in a paper I referenced and quoted dozens of times in this
> thread
... wherein the ASA stated the exact opposite of what you claimed they
stated.
ASA:
http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
Memory loss medication:
http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_standard_prescriptions.asp
Desertphile
Feb 8, 2013, 4:57:04 PM2/8/13
to
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 13:40:52 -0800 (PST), "erschro...@gmail.com"
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 3:49�pm, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 01:06:27 -0600, josephus wrote:
> > >> Your permanent use of abusive statement gives a very negative image of
> > >> you. Why can't you reply correctly, you know that abuse is the last
> > >> resort of a looser in a debate.
> > > quoting �mathematics with out numbers is �in this case �stupid. �there
> > > no context for the �math. �the assertions are UNSUPPORTED
> > MBH98 is based on an inappropriate use of the Principal Component
> > statistical analysis. This has been verified by the American Statistical
The ASA said the opposite:
http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
> "The test in science is whether findings can be replicated using
> different data and methods. More than two dozen scientific papers,
> using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records,
> have produced reconstructions supporting the broad consensus shown in
> the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the
> pre-20th century "shaft" appears. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment
> Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or
> longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that
> Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the
> highest in at least the past 1,300 years. Ten or more subsequent
> reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these
> general conclusions."
Yes; there are now over 19 independent reconstructions (that I am
aware of), using independent data, and they all show a "hockey stick."
> "At the end of April Science published a reconstruction by J.
> Oerlemans based on glacier length records from different parts of the
> world, and found consistent independent evidence for the period from
> 1600 to 1990 supporting other reconstructions regarding magnitude and
> timing of global warming.[154] In May the University Corporation for
> Atmospheric Research advised media about a detailed analysis by Eugene
> Wahl and Caspar Ammann, first presented at the American Geophysical
> Union�s December 2004 meeting in San Francisco, which used their own
> code to replicate the MBH results, and found the MBH method to be
> robust even with modifications. Their work contradicted the claims by
> McIntyre and McKitrick about high 15th century global temperatures and
> allegations of methodological bias towards a hockey stick outcomes,
> and they concluded that the criticisms of the hockey stick graph were
> groundless"
>
> "Various criticisms of the MBH statistical methods were discussed in
> the context of more recent research which explored ways of addressing
> these problems, and showed greater amplitude of temperature variations
> over 1000 to 2000 years. Recent papers cited included Wahl & Ammann
> 2006 (in press). On McIntyre and McKitrick's criticism of principal
> component analysis as tending to bias the shape of the
> reconstructions, it found that "In practice, this method, though not
> recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of
> hemispheric mean temperature", and reconstructions using other methods
> were qualitatively similar. Some of the criticisms of validation
> techniques were more valid than others, these issues and the effect on
> robustness of the choice of proxies contributed to the committee's
> view of increased uncertainties. They called for further research into
> methods and a search for more proxies for earlier periods.
>
> At the press conference the three NRC panellists said they found no
> evidence supporting the allegations of inappropriate behaviour such as
> data manipulation, or "anything other than an honest attempt to
> construct a data analysis procedure". Bloomfield as a statistician
> considered all the choices of data processing and methods to have been
> "quite reasonable" in a "first of its kind study". He said "I would
> not have been embarrassed by that work at the time if I'd been
> involved in it". In response to a question from Edward Wegman on the
> MBH use of principal components analysis, Bloomfield said this had
> been reviewed by the committee along with other statistical issues,
> and "while the issues are real, they had a very minimal effect, not a
> material effect on the final reconstruction."
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 3:49�pm, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 01:06:27 -0600, josephus wrote:
> > >> Your permanent use of abusive statement gives a very negative image of
> > >> you. Why can't you reply correctly, you know that abuse is the last
> > >> resort of a looser in a debate.
> > > quoting �mathematics with out numbers is �in this case �stupid. �there
> > > no context for the �math. �the assertions are UNSUPPORTED
> > MBH98 is based on an inappropriate use of the Principal Component
The ASA said the opposite:
http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
> "The test in science is whether findings can be replicated using
> different data and methods. More than two dozen scientific papers,
> using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records,
> have produced reconstructions supporting the broad consensus shown in
> the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the
> pre-20th century "shaft" appears. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment
> Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or
> longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that
> Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the
> highest in at least the past 1,300 years. Ten or more subsequent
> reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these
> general conclusions."
Yes; there are now over 19 independent reconstructions (that I am
aware of), using independent data, and they all show a "hockey stick."
> "At the end of April Science published a reconstruction by J.
> Oerlemans based on glacier length records from different parts of the
> world, and found consistent independent evidence for the period from
> 1600 to 1990 supporting other reconstructions regarding magnitude and
> timing of global warming.[154] In May the University Corporation for
> Atmospheric Research advised media about a detailed analysis by Eugene
> Wahl and Caspar Ammann, first presented at the American Geophysical
> Union�s December 2004 meeting in San Francisco, which used their own
> code to replicate the MBH results, and found the MBH method to be
> robust even with modifications. Their work contradicted the claims by
> McIntyre and McKitrick about high 15th century global temperatures and
> allegations of methodological bias towards a hockey stick outcomes,
> and they concluded that the criticisms of the hockey stick graph were
> groundless"
>
> "Various criticisms of the MBH statistical methods were discussed in
> the context of more recent research which explored ways of addressing
> these problems, and showed greater amplitude of temperature variations
> over 1000 to 2000 years. Recent papers cited included Wahl & Ammann
> 2006 (in press). On McIntyre and McKitrick's criticism of principal
> component analysis as tending to bias the shape of the
> reconstructions, it found that "In practice, this method, though not
> recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of
> hemispheric mean temperature", and reconstructions using other methods
> were qualitatively similar. Some of the criticisms of validation
> techniques were more valid than others, these issues and the effect on
> robustness of the choice of proxies contributed to the committee's
> view of increased uncertainties. They called for further research into
> methods and a search for more proxies for earlier periods.
>
> At the press conference the three NRC panellists said they found no
> evidence supporting the allegations of inappropriate behaviour such as
> data manipulation, or "anything other than an honest attempt to
> construct a data analysis procedure". Bloomfield as a statistician
> considered all the choices of data processing and methods to have been
> "quite reasonable" in a "first of its kind study". He said "I would
> not have been embarrassed by that work at the time if I'd been
> involved in it". In response to a question from Edward Wegman on the
> MBH use of principal components analysis, Bloomfield said this had
> been reviewed by the committee along with other statistical issues,
> and "while the issues are real, they had a very minimal effect, not a
> material effect on the final reconstruction."
Desertphile
Feb 8, 2013, 4:58:19 PM2/8/13
to
On 07 Feb 2013 20:59:27 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 02:45:20 -0600, josephus wrote:
>
> >> Maybe the 0938018124.txt alone is not conclusive. The context, the
> >> dates,
> >> the persons involved, the other emails, the accompanying documents, the
> >> graphs in the IPCC publications, all those corresponding elements draw
> >> a very clear picture of a group of person pretending to act
> >> scientifically,
> >> but actually acting as political activists, making their political case
> >> by cherry the picking data they choose to publish.
> >>
> >> I hope that the few elements that I provided here help those who want
> >> to understand where they should look to make their own opinion on what
> >> appears to me, and to many, as a definite lack of scientific integrity.
> >> Nobody will prevent you from putting your finger in your ears and
> >> chanting "no, no, no, I don't understand you".
> > the fact is that deniers are eager to learn about illegal activities of
> > scientists.
> In this thread, I don't argue about the possibly illegal activities. I
> mentioned non ethical, activities, and I brought a lot of factual
> elements I won't repeat here.
And yet you keep lying about the ASA. Why?
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 02:45:20 -0600, josephus wrote:
>
> >> Maybe the 0938018124.txt alone is not conclusive. The context, the
> >> dates,
> >> the persons involved, the other emails, the accompanying documents, the
> >> graphs in the IPCC publications, all those corresponding elements draw
> >> a very clear picture of a group of person pretending to act
> >> scientifically,
> >> but actually acting as political activists, making their political case
> >> by cherry the picking data they choose to publish.
> >>
> >> I hope that the few elements that I provided here help those who want
> >> to understand where they should look to make their own opinion on what
> >> appears to me, and to many, as a definite lack of scientific integrity.
> >> Nobody will prevent you from putting your finger in your ears and
> >> chanting "no, no, no, I don't understand you".
> > the fact is that deniers are eager to learn about illegal activities of
> > scientists.
> In this thread, I don't argue about the possibly illegal activities. I
> mentioned non ethical, activities, and I brought a lot of factual
> elements I won't repeat here.
Desertphile
Feb 8, 2013, 5:00:09 PM2/8/13
to
On 08 Feb 2013 18:47:02 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:33:22 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 02 Feb 2013 20:46:14 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:20:56 -0600, josephus wrote:
> > >
> > > > but that letter does not properly say what exactly the mathematical
> > > > problem was.
> >
> > > The ASA newsletter is extremely explicit:
> >
> > ... which reported on what the Heartland Institude cult asserted, and
> > which the ASA stated is wrong.
> >
> > ASA:
> > http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
> >
> "At the core of the controversy is an incorrect use by
> Mann et al. of principal components (PCs). Ed gave a brief
> overview of PC analysis, which uses the eigenvalues and
> eigenvectors of the sample covariances of a data matrix
> X. However as most commonly applied in large data
> sets, the actual calculation begins with a singular value
> decomposition of X itself, after subtracting the sample
> mean vector. A typical analysis by Mann et al. used a com-
> plete data record from 1902-1980 as a training data set
> to reconstruct temperatures from proxies for 1400-1995.
> However, the sample means they subtracted were based
> only on the data from 1902-1980, instead of the full series
> 1400-1995. This induced a bias in the first PC, and also
> biased the variances in a direction which gave greater
> weight to the first PC than a correct analysis would have
> done."
Yes: Wegman said that at the Heartland Institute cult's conference.
The ASA said he's full of shit.
ASA:
http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
Memory loss medication:
http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_standard_prescriptions.asp
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:33:22 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 02 Feb 2013 20:46:14 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:20:56 -0600, josephus wrote:
> > >
> > > > but that letter does not properly say what exactly the mathematical
> > > > problem was.
> >
> > > The ASA newsletter is extremely explicit:
> >
> > ... which reported on what the Heartland Institude cult asserted, and
> > which the ASA stated is wrong.
> >
> > ASA:
> > http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
> >
> Basically, this document says that the ASA acknowledges that there is an
> impropriate use of PCA analysis in MBH98. Here is what your document says:
The newsletter says the exact opposite. Why don't you read it?
> impropriate use of PCA analysis in MBH98. Here is what your document says:
> "At the core of the controversy is an incorrect use by
> Mann et al. of principal components (PCs). Ed gave a brief
> overview of PC analysis, which uses the eigenvalues and
> eigenvectors of the sample covariances of a data matrix
> X. However as most commonly applied in large data
> sets, the actual calculation begins with a singular value
> decomposition of X itself, after subtracting the sample
> mean vector. A typical analysis by Mann et al. used a com-
> plete data record from 1902-1980 as a training data set
> to reconstruct temperatures from proxies for 1400-1995.
> However, the sample means they subtracted were based
> only on the data from 1902-1980, instead of the full series
> 1400-1995. This induced a bias in the first PC, and also
> biased the variances in a direction which gave greater
> weight to the first PC than a correct analysis would have
> done."
The ASA said he's full of shit.
ASA:
http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
Memory loss medication:
http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_standard_prescriptions.asp
Desertphile
Feb 8, 2013, 5:00:55 PM2/8/13
to
On 08 Feb 2013 18:59:22 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:35:24 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 02 Feb 2013 20:58:41 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:20:43 -0600, josephus wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul Aubrin wrote:
> > > >> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:33:04 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>>> He wrote: "At the core of the controversy is an incorrect use by
> > > >>>> the newsletter: why do you suppose you do that?
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes, you mean that having no more valid argument, you attempted an
> > > >> ultimate diversion.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > that is a dishonest assertion. he complained you deleted the link but
> > > > you said Yes, HE had no valid argument. but YOU deleted the link he
> > > > complained about. because you so you can say there was no agurmnent.
> > > > josphus
> >
> > ... which reported on comments at The Hartland Instuude cult's anti-
> > science conference, Shit-for-brains.
> > > invalid:
> >
> > And the ASA said Wegman is wrong.
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:35:24 -0700, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 02 Feb 2013 20:58:41 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:20:43 -0600, josephus wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul Aubrin wrote:
> > > >> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:33:04 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>>> He wrote: "At the core of the controversy is an incorrect use by
> > > >>>>> Mann et al. of principal components (PCs)."
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Yes, and the ASA stated that is false. You keep removing the link to
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> the newsletter: why do you suppose you do that?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Memory loss medication:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_standard_prescriptions.asp
> > > >>>
> > > >>> See what I mean?
> > > >>>> http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Memory loss medication:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_standard_prescriptions.asp
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes, you mean that having no more valid argument, you attempted an
> > > >> ultimate diversion.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > that is a dishonest assertion. he complained you deleted the link but
> > > > you said Yes, HE had no valid argument. but YOU deleted the link he
> > > > complained about. because you so you can say there was no agurmnent.
> > > > josphus
> >
> > > I introduced, myself, this link in the discussion. Dear Desert first
> > > shrieked saying it was the Wegman report.
> >
> > No, I did not. I said Wegman made the false assertions,
> > Shit-for-brains.
> > > I introduced, myself, this link in the discussion. Dear Desert first
> > > shrieked saying it was the Wegman report.
> >
> > No, I did not. I said Wegman made the false assertions,
> >
> > ASA:
> > http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
> >
> > Memory loss medication:
> > http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_standard_prescriptions.asp
> >
> >
> > > It isn't.
> > ASA:
> > http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
> >
> > Memory loss medication:
> > http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_standard_prescriptions.asp
> >
> >
> >
> > Nobody claimed it is, Shit-for-brains.
> >
> > Nobody claimed it is, Shit-for-brains.
> >
> > ASA:
> > http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
> >
> > Memory loss medication:
> > http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_standard_prescriptions.asp
> >
> > > This is actually an ASA newsletter
> > http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
> >
> > Memory loss medication:
> > http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_standard_prescriptions.asp
> >
> >
> > ... which reported on comments at The Hartland Instuude cult's anti-
> > science conference, Shit-for-brains.
> >
> > ASA:
> > http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
> >
> > Memory loss medication:
> > http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_standard_prescriptions.asp
> >
> > > and it explains what in the MBH98 paper is statistically
> > ASA:
> > http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
> >
> > Memory loss medication:
> > http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_standard_prescriptions.asp
> >
> > > invalid:
> >
> > And the ASA said Wegman is wrong.
> >
> > ASA:
> > http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
> >
> > Memory loss medication:
> > http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_standard_prescriptions.asp
> > ASA:
> > http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
> >
> > Memory loss medication:
> > http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_standard_prescriptions.asp
> So, it was a diversion, to try to hide that I was right and you were
> wrong.
The newsletter states the opposite of what you claim it does.
> wrong.
Dawlish
Feb 8, 2013, 7:28:19 PM2/8/13
to
emoneyjoe
Feb 8, 2013, 7:35:13 PM2/8/13
to
to show it has warmed, if the data from the
past is not dependable, they have nothing.
What is really astonishing is that they
claim having sensors at the airport doesn't
skew the data.
emoneyjoe
Feb 8, 2013, 8:18:11 PM2/8/13
to
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:14:17 -0800, gordo <grme...@shaw.ca.remove>
Not all the time, but when it runs fast, yes.
The pipeline would be expensive, and water
isn't worth much, but it could be a shovel
ready project if planned and funded.
The pipeline would be expensive, and water
isn't worth much, but it could be a shovel
ready project if planned and funded.
Dawlish
Feb 8, 2013, 8:20:30 PM2/8/13
to emon...@iglou.com
Oh dear.
gordo
Feb 9, 2013, 12:29:07 AM2/9/13
to
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:18:11 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:
Snip
provide many benefits that get lost in the politics of man.Pipelines
and dams that forget the downstream users is usually a political call
because they can get away with it and make someone else pay for
it.Technology has brought us wonders but without understanding how
natural systems work our technology backfires on us.
wrote:
Snip
>>>
>>> You missed the point, the Ohio River,
>>>at times, may have the most water flowing,
>>>compare the above 830,000 cubic feet
>>>per second with the water flowing into
>>>Lake Mead and through Hoover Dam
>>>of only 115,000 feet per second.
>>>
>>>http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=vef&gage=cdca3
>>>
>>I get the point that there is water in a river that you think you can
>>take out and send somewhere else. I also know that water schemes are
>>based upon getting someone else to pay for them.
>
> Not all the time, but when it runs fast, yes.
>The pipeline would be expensive, and water
>isn't worth much, but it could be a shovel
>ready project if planned and funded.
Water is more valuable than oil. Rivers and lakes and wetlands also
>>> You missed the point, the Ohio River,
>>>at times, may have the most water flowing,
>>>compare the above 830,000 cubic feet
>>>per second with the water flowing into
>>>Lake Mead and through Hoover Dam
>>>of only 115,000 feet per second.
>>>
>>>http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?wfo=vef&gage=cdca3
>>>
>>I get the point that there is water in a river that you think you can
>>take out and send somewhere else. I also know that water schemes are
>>based upon getting someone else to pay for them.
>
> Not all the time, but when it runs fast, yes.
>The pipeline would be expensive, and water
>isn't worth much, but it could be a shovel
>ready project if planned and funded.
provide many benefits that get lost in the politics of man.Pipelines
and dams that forget the downstream users is usually a political call
because they can get away with it and make someone else pay for
it.Technology has brought us wonders but without understanding how
natural systems work our technology backfires on us.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 1:20:47 AM2/9/13
to
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 14:57:04 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>> > MBH98 is based on an inappropriate use of the Principal Component
>> > statistical analysis. This has been verified by the American
>> > Statistical
>
> The ASA said the opposite:
>
> http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
Here is a quote of this ASA Newsletter:
>> > MBH98 is based on an inappropriate use of the Principal Component
>> > statistical analysis. This has been verified by the American
>> > Statistical
>
> The ASA said the opposite:
>
> http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
"At the core of the controversy is an *incorrect use* by
Mann et al. of principal components (PCs). Ed gave a brief
overview of PC analysis, which uses the eigenvalues and
eigenvectors of the sample covariances of a data matrix
X. However as most commonly applied in large data
sets, the actual calculation begins with a singular value
decomposition of X itself, after subtracting the sample
mean vector. A typical analysis by Mann et al. used a com-
plete data record from 1902-1980 as a training data set
to reconstruct temperatures from proxies for 1400-1995.
However, the sample means *they subtracted* were based
overview of PC analysis, which uses the eigenvalues and
eigenvectors of the sample covariances of a data matrix
X. However as most commonly applied in large data
sets, the actual calculation begins with a singular value
decomposition of X itself, after subtracting the sample
mean vector. A typical analysis by Mann et al. used a com-
plete data record from 1902-1980 as a training data set
to reconstruct temperatures from proxies for 1400-1995.
*only on the data from 1902-1980*, *instead of the full* *series*
1400-1995. *This induced a bias* in the first PC, and also
biased the variances in a direction which gave greater
weight to the first PC than a correct analysis would have done."
Do you understand that this paragraph, in full indicative mood, states
weight to the first PC than a correct analysis would have done."
exactly the opposite of what you suggest? Do you understand that what is
expressed in this paragraph is an accurate statement, proved beyond any
doubt: "At the core of the controversy is an *incorrect* use by *Mann* et
al. of *principal components (PC)*".
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Feb 9, 2013, 1:21:38 AM2/9/13
to
On Feb 8, 9:29 pm, gordo <grmerr...@shaw.ca.remove> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:18:11 -0500, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com>
well said.
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:18:11 -0500, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com>
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 1:28:09 AM2/9/13
to
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 14:54:56 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>> > quoting mathematics with out numbers is in this case stupid.
>> > there no context for the math. the assertions are UNSUPPORTED
>
>> MBH98 is based on an inappropriate use of the Principal Component
>> statistical analysis.
>
> Funny how no statistician "knows" that astonishing "fact" of yours.
It is exactly, word by word, what is stated in the paper you reference
>> > quoting mathematics with out numbers is in this case stupid.
>> > there no context for the math. the assertions are UNSUPPORTED
>
>> MBH98 is based on an inappropriate use of the Principal Component
>> statistical analysis.
>
> Funny how no statistician "knows" that astonishing "fact" of yours.
below, quote: "At the core of the controversy is an *incorrect use* *by*
*Mann et al.* *of principal components* (PCs)".
Indeed, the MBH paper didn't conform to what is prescribed in their
Preisendorfer statistical reference, leading to the incorrect results
which are the ordinary consequences of it.
The ASA Newsletter states all this in a particularly clear way.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 1:34:59 AM2/9/13
to
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 14:54:46 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>> > > Just using thermometer reading cannot allow to attribute a cause to
>> > > anything.
>
>> > Idiot.
>
>> I explain it easily: you pretend to represent "all the experts"
>
> No.
>
> Every single Earth Sciences science organization on the planet that has
> issued a formal statement on the subject has stated you are wrong. Does
> that fact really not cause you any worry at all concerning your mental
> health?
No, Desertphile. They didn't state what you incorrectly report. No
>> > > Just using thermometer reading cannot allow to attribute a cause to
>> > > anything.
>
>> > Idiot.
>
>> I explain it easily: you pretend to represent "all the experts"
>
> No.
>
> Every single Earth Sciences science organization on the planet that has
> issued a formal statement on the subject has stated you are wrong. Does
> that fact really not cause you any worry at all concerning your mental
> health?
scientist, obviously, would: reading of thermometers, by itself, is no
indication of any candidate cause. The identification of the cause is a
separate work (measures, hypothesis, forecasts, comparison of forecast
with observations, etc.).
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 1:48:01 AM2/9/13
to
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 14:58:19 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>> > the fact is that deniers are eager to learn about illegal activities
>> > of scientists.
>
>> In this thread, I don't argue about the possibly illegal activities. I
>> mentioned non ethical, activities, and I brought a lot of factual
>> elements I won't repeat here.
>
> And yet you keep lying about the ASA. Why?
How could I lie about the ASA when I just provide accurate quotes, which
>> > the fact is that deniers are eager to learn about illegal activities
>> > of scientists.
>
>> In this thread, I don't argue about the possibly illegal activities. I
>> mentioned non ethical, activities, and I brought a lot of factual
>> elements I won't repeat here.
>
> And yet you keep lying about the ASA. Why?
oppose to your belief, of its Newsletter?
Quote from the ASA Newsletter:
"At the core of the controversy is an *incorrect use* *by*
*Mann et al. of principal components* (PCs)."
This ASA statement was confirmed by the National Research Council
(Academy of Science):
"Spurious Principal Components
McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) demonstrated that under some conditions,
the leading principal component can exhibit a spurious trendlike
appearance, which could then lead to a spurious trend in the proxy-based
reconstruction."
- SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE LAST 2,000 YEARS (§9
STATISTICAL BACKGROUND page 86)
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 1:58:27 AM2/9/13
to
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:00:09 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> The newsletter says the exact opposite. Why don't you read it?
Not only do I read it, but I quote it.
> The newsletter says the exact opposite. Why don't you read it?
Let's quote again this very factual statement of the statistical
erroneous method used in MBH98: "At the core of the controversy is an
incorrect use by Mann et al. of principal components (PCs)".
Here the National Research Council (of the National Academies) reports
the same error:
"McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) *demonstrated* that under some conditions,
the leading principal component can exhibit a spurious trendlike
appearance, which could then lead to a *spurious trend* in the proxy-
based reconstruction."
>
>> [...]
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 2:06:59 AM2/9/13
to
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 15:00:55 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> The newsletter states the opposite of what you claim it does.
>
> ASA: http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
A quote to your reference:
> The newsletter states the opposite of what you claim it does.
>
> ASA: http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
"At the core of the controversy is an incorrect use by
Mann et al. of principal components (PCs)".
Now a quote from a NRC report on the same subject:
Mann et al. of principal components (PCs)".
"Spurious Principal Components
McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) demonstrated that under some conditions,
the leading principal component can exhibit a spurious trendlike
appearance, which could then lead to a spurious trend in the proxy-based
reconstruction. To see how this can happen, suppose that instead of proxy
climate data, one simply used a random sample of autocorrelated time
series that did not contain a coherent signal. If these simulated proxies
are standardized as anomalies with respect to a calibration period and
used to form principal components, the first component tends to exhibit a
trend, even though the proxies themselves have no common trend."
"Essentially, the first component tends to capture those proxies that, by
chance, show different values between the calibration period and the
remainder of the data. If this component is used by itself or in
conjunction with a small number of unaffected components to perform
reconstruction, the resulting temperature reconstruction may exhibit a
trend, even though the individual proxies do not. Figure 9-2 shows the
result of a simple simulation along the lines of McIntyre and
McKitrick (2003) (the computer code appears in Appendix B)."
Note that I just don't mimic you saying "all the scientists say...". I
give you some factual evidence taken from the ASA (your reference) and
the NRC documents which proves what I say.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 2:09:08 AM2/9/13
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:36:10 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> ... who reported what Wegman claimed in a conference at the Heartland
> Insititude cult.
>
> ASA:
> http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
If the ASA Newsletter reports as a fact (in the indicative mood) what Dr.
Wegman said, we can suppose that they know what they do.
> ... who reported what Wegman claimed in a conference at the Heartland
> Insititude cult.
>
> ASA:
> http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
If the ASA Newsletter reports as a fact (in the indicative mood) what Dr.
Wegman said, we can suppose that they know what they do.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 2:14:46 AM2/9/13
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:37:58 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>> > it should be historically true then and occur as a policy in the ASA
>> > newsletter. If it did not then somebody is lying.
>> > josephus
>
>> I don't know if Desertphile is lying or just equivocated.
>
> Neither, as you know. Did you get the medication?
I will give you the right answer: you lie.
The statistical error made in MBH98 is well known and exactly described
in this ASA Newsletter, in the National Research Council report and in a
number of other places. It is *undeniable*. And for nearly a month now,
all you could provide for answer were bare denial and abuse.
>> > it should be historically true then and occur as a policy in the ASA
>> > newsletter. If it did not then somebody is lying.
>> > josephus
>
>> I don't know if Desertphile is lying or just equivocated.
>
> Neither, as you know. Did you get the medication?
I will give you the right answer: you lie.
The statistical error made in MBH98 is well known and exactly described
in this ASA Newsletter, in the National Research Council report and in a
number of other places. It is *undeniable*. And for nearly a month now,
all you could provide for answer were bare denial and abuse.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 2:21:04 AM2/9/13
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:38:34 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>> > Paul, I have already told you why MM is wrong. You tell me you know
>> > nothing about the subject.
>
>> I read the ASA newsletter
>
> Then you have zewro excuse for claiming it's the ASA's conclusion,
> Shit-for-brains.
>
> ASA: http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
I read the ASA newsletter and I quoted this: "At the core of the
substantial.
>> > Paul, I have already told you why MM is wrong. You tell me you know
>> > nothing about the subject.
>
>> I read the ASA newsletter
>
> Then you have zewro excuse for claiming it's the ASA's conclusion,
> Shit-for-brains.
>
> ASA: http://www.amstat-online.org/sections/envr/ssenews/ENVR_9_1.pdf
I read the ASA newsletter and I quoted this: "At the core of the
controversy is an incorrect use by Mann et al. of principal components
(PCs)".
Conclusion confirmed by a report from the NRC:
(PCs)".
"Spurious Principal Components
McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) demonstrated that under some conditions,
the leading principal component can exhibit a spurious trendlike
appearance, which could then lead to a spurious trend in the proxy-based
reconstruction."
Up to now, what has been your answer? Ad hominem, abuse, nothing
McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) demonstrated that under some conditions,
the leading principal component can exhibit a spurious trendlike
appearance, which could then lead to a spurious trend in the proxy-based
reconstruction."
substantial.
Dawlish
Feb 9, 2013, 2:33:45 AM2/9/13
to
gordo
Feb 9, 2013, 2:47:44 AM2/9/13
to
government. Why not watch it? Dr. Manns work has been verified and
there was a criticism that seemed to be correct but had no bearing on
the results. Time to move on.
Dawlish
Feb 9, 2013, 3:16:59 AM2/9/13
to
All these *>two dozen* papers, verifying Dr Mann's (Bradley's and Hughes') work, quoted in Wiki, can be easily researched and read. I've read a scattering in the past; not all:
"The test in science is whether findings can be replicated using different data and methods. More than two dozen scientific papers, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions supporting the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Ten or more subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008, have supported these general conclusions."
Why this nutbar wants to throw in his, very ignorant and uneducated, two penn'orth is beyond me.
It is dead and buried pauly. The results of the 1998 paper have been replicated quite enough and the criticism has been debunked. Just because pauly believes otherwise, counts for exactly *nothing*.
Harsh, pauly, I know; but completely true.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 3:27:14 AM2/9/13
to
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 02:34:04 -0600, josephus wrote:
>> thus:
>> all of the problem simply disappeares, if one concieves of a "photon"
>> as a quantum of wave-energy, propogating through space;
>> taht is to say, spatially or three-dee-ally; as when,
>> the photon is split into two waves,
>> each of half the frequency (or energy, or "mass"),
>> thence propogating outward from that half-silvered mirror.
>>
>> all properties of light are wavey,
>> as shown by Young, except for the photo-electrical effect;
>> that, also, can be considered in terms of a quantum of wave; it's just
>> that the Copehangenskoolers don't do that,
>> there is something rotten o'er theresville.
>>
>>
> word sald nonsense and noise josephus
Light has all the properties of a wave, the way those properties can be
re-conciliated with the photoelectric phenomenon is the object of
Feynman's very easy to read little book on light and matter.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5552.QED
"Just to give you an idea of how the theory has been put to its wringers,
I'll give you some recent numbers: experiments have Dirac's number as
1.00115965221 (with an uncertainty of about 4 in the last digit); the
theory puts it at 1.00115965246 (with an uncertainty about five times as
much). To give you a feeling for the accuracy of these numbers, it comes
out something like this: If you were to measure the distance between Los
Angeles to New York to this accuracy, it would be exact to the thickness
of a human hair".
>> thus:
>> all of the problem simply disappeares, if one concieves of a "photon"
>> as a quantum of wave-energy, propogating through space;
>> taht is to say, spatially or three-dee-ally; as when,
>> the photon is split into two waves,
>> each of half the frequency (or energy, or "mass"),
>> thence propogating outward from that half-silvered mirror.
>>
>> all properties of light are wavey,
>> as shown by Young, except for the photo-electrical effect;
>> that, also, can be considered in terms of a quantum of wave; it's just
>> that the Copehangenskoolers don't do that,
>> there is something rotten o'er theresville.
>>
>>
> word sald nonsense and noise josephus
Light has all the properties of a wave, the way those properties can be
re-conciliated with the photoelectric phenomenon is the object of
Feynman's very easy to read little book on light and matter.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5552.QED
"Just to give you an idea of how the theory has been put to its wringers,
I'll give you some recent numbers: experiments have Dirac's number as
1.00115965221 (with an uncertainty of about 4 in the last digit); the
theory puts it at 1.00115965246 (with an uncertainty about five times as
much). To give you a feeling for the accuracy of these numbers, it comes
out something like this: If you were to measure the distance between Los
Angeles to New York to this accuracy, it would be exact to the thickness
of a human hair".
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 3:52:52 AM2/9/13
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:45:06 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> On 03 Feb 2013 00:37:25 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 06:02:11 -0600, josephus wrote:
>>
>> >> As you are brighter and more learn in physics than Nobel prize of
>> >> physics recipients you could easily observe that 2012 temperatures
>> >> are outside the range assigned by the four successive IPCC
>> >> predictions (with a 95% confidence level). As a brighter person than
>> >> most physicist in the world,
>> >> you know enough maths to derive the obvious result, without the help
>> >> of Nature or the IPCC.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > more half truth. the fact that the IPCC missed or did not match the
>> > prediction is not the same as a refutation. the issue was we are
>> > too warm and the paper suggests a reason.
>
>> Whether they have an explanation or not, the failure to make valid
>> predictions implies that the theory at the base of the prediction must
>> be revised.
>
> AR4's temperature increase projection was better than 90% accurate.
> That's pretty goddamn good, yes?
The point representing the temperatures of nowadays falls outside of the
90% projected range. This had only one chance out of 10 to be possible.
From this prediction we can conclude that the theory at the base of the
AR4 predictions has 9 chances out of ten to be false.
If you combine this with the predictions made by the FAR, SAR and TAR,
the odds become 9999 chances out of 10000.
> On 03 Feb 2013 00:37:25 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 06:02:11 -0600, josephus wrote:
>>
>> >> As you are brighter and more learn in physics than Nobel prize of
>> >> physics recipients you could easily observe that 2012 temperatures
>> >> are outside the range assigned by the four successive IPCC
>> >> predictions (with a 95% confidence level). As a brighter person than
>> >> most physicist in the world,
>> >> you know enough maths to derive the obvious result, without the help
>> >> of Nature or the IPCC.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > more half truth. the fact that the IPCC missed or did not match the
>> > prediction is not the same as a refutation. the issue was we are
>> > too warm and the paper suggests a reason.
>
>> Whether they have an explanation or not, the failure to make valid
>> predictions implies that the theory at the base of the prediction must
>> be revised.
>
> AR4's temperature increase projection was better than 90% accurate.
> That's pretty goddamn good, yes?
The point representing the temperatures of nowadays falls outside of the
90% projected range. This had only one chance out of 10 to be possible.
From this prediction we can conclude that the theory at the base of the
AR4 predictions has 9 chances out of ten to be false.
If you combine this with the predictions made by the FAR, SAR and TAR,
the odds become 9999 chances out of 10000.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 4:16:06 AM2/9/13
to
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:43:45 -0800, gordo wrote:
>>No creationist use that list, There are nearly no creationists over
>>there, Josephus. Creationism is not a disease here in Europe. The person
>>who published the is a recently retired scientist (a physicist, probably
>>a member of the Institute), a sceptic. His list is mostly a list of
>>scientists who publicly declared their doubts toward global-warming.
>
> There is no doubt about global warming even among the unwashed. There is
> no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There is no doubt that we are
> burning fossil fuels that are responsible for most of the present global
> warming.
On this conclusion, we visibly differ. Your intimate belief is
respectable, but is not an evidence. The atmospheric system is not
sufficiently known to gain this level of certainty. The models, used by
the IPCC as an evidence, are nothing more than guesses. When you compare
the predictions made on the basis of those guesses with the current
temperature data, the predictions fall repeatedly outside of the 95%
confidence interval.
Graph here:
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ipcc10.gif
>>No creationist use that list, There are nearly no creationists over
>>there, Josephus. Creationism is not a disease here in Europe. The person
>>who published the is a recently retired scientist (a physicist, probably
>>a member of the Institute), a sceptic. His list is mostly a list of
>>scientists who publicly declared their doubts toward global-warming.
>
> There is no doubt about global warming even among the unwashed. There is
> no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. There is no doubt that we are
> burning fossil fuels that are responsible for most of the present global
> warming.
On this conclusion, we visibly differ. Your intimate belief is
respectable, but is not an evidence. The atmospheric system is not
sufficiently known to gain this level of certainty. The models, used by
the IPCC as an evidence, are nothing more than guesses. When you compare
the predictions made on the basis of those guesses with the current
temperature data, the predictions fall repeatedly outside of the 95%
confidence interval.
Graph here:
http://kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ipcc10.gif
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 4:36:40 AM2/9/13
to
On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 06:40:40 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Feb 3, 6:37 am, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 06:04:11 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>> wrote:
>> >> The supposed way by which CO2 acts in the high atmosphere are its
>> >> radiative properties. The way oxygen (in its ozone form) acts are is
>> >> chemical (oxidizing) properties. Two different causes, two different
>> >> consequences.
>>
>> > Bu twe are only talking in the lower stratosphere, ozone and co2 both
>> > absorb energy at that altitude your bs has been called out. The key
>> > to the comparison is that a little bit of ozone up in the
>> > stratosphere has an impact on life below and earths energy budget.
>>
>> In the lower troposphere, CO2 already absorbs 100% of what it can
>> absorb.
>> Thus increasing its concentrations has no effect. Your ozone analogy is
>> as devoid of physical meaning as your insulating blanket analogy. You
>> will stick to your meaningless analogies because they comfort your
>> prejudice.
>
> The Co2 Airs data from the mid troposphere showed that to be incorrect,
> the blanket analogy holds and the comparison to ozone holds. That
> saturation argument is old and tired, time to give it up.
>
> http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/
>
> http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/
About_AIRS_CO2_Data_files/index.jpg
Your reference contains no evidence that AIRS supports your insulating
blanket analogy. Failed again.
> On Feb 3, 6:37 am, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 06:04:11 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>> wrote:
>> >> The supposed way by which CO2 acts in the high atmosphere are its
>> >> radiative properties. The way oxygen (in its ozone form) acts are is
>> >> chemical (oxidizing) properties. Two different causes, two different
>> >> consequences.
>>
>> > Bu twe are only talking in the lower stratosphere, ozone and co2 both
>> > absorb energy at that altitude your bs has been called out. The key
>> > to the comparison is that a little bit of ozone up in the
>> > stratosphere has an impact on life below and earths energy budget.
>>
>> In the lower troposphere, CO2 already absorbs 100% of what it can
>> absorb.
>> Thus increasing its concentrations has no effect. Your ozone analogy is
>> as devoid of physical meaning as your insulating blanket analogy. You
>> will stick to your meaningless analogies because they comfort your
>> prejudice.
>
> The Co2 Airs data from the mid troposphere showed that to be incorrect,
> the blanket analogy holds and the comparison to ozone holds. That
> saturation argument is old and tired, time to give it up.
>
> http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/
>
> http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/
About_AIRS_CO2_Data_files/index.jpg
Your reference contains no evidence that AIRS supports your insulating
blanket analogy. Failed again.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 4:41:08 AM2/9/13
to
On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 06:07:36 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Feb 3, 6:05 am, "%" <pers...@gmail.com> wrote:" so"
>
> no ozone, more uv resulting in more damaged cells and damaged life,
> which mean more people like you making stupid posts.
Diversion + Abuse two well documented tactics when you loose the point in
a discussion.
f.u. to alt.global-warming only to stop bothering the readers of the
alt.atheism group with this irrelevant discussion.
> On Feb 3, 6:05 am, "%" <pers...@gmail.com> wrote:" so"
>
> no ozone, more uv resulting in more damaged cells and damaged life,
> which mean more people like you making stupid posts.
Diversion + Abuse two well documented tactics when you loose the point in
a discussion.
f.u. to alt.global-warming only to stop bothering the readers of the
alt.atheism group with this irrelevant discussion.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 4:50:07 AM2/9/13
to
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:29:13 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2:18 pm, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:" Columbia is
> supposed to justify his analogy (CO2 acts like an insulator)."
>
> Actually you made an ignorant assertion that about my description of
> earths atmosphere acting like an insulator, but you have yet to show the
> atmospheric downward IR flux does not delay in the transfer of energy
> from the hot sink to the cold sink. For if it does the comparison is
> validated including the green house effect you have no point except to
> act rather dishonest about the entire thread.
You are the person who proposes the CO2 as insulation blanket analogy.
You have to give the evidence that it is a useful analogy. The downward IR
flux is just what is called "thermal molecular agitation" or "atmospheric
pressure" or "temperature", by no means cold gases in the higher
atmosphere can heat the warmer ground.
>
> Information about earth's atmosphere.
>
> http://www.mnsu.edu/weather/upper/500temp.html
>
> http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/
You provide no quote because those references don't support your CO2 as
an insulating blanket analogy. You just try to hide its irrelevance
behind a screen of smoke.
f.u. to global-warming only.
> On Feb 6, 2:18 pm, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:" Columbia is
> supposed to justify his analogy (CO2 acts like an insulator)."
>
> Actually you made an ignorant assertion that about my description of
> earths atmosphere acting like an insulator, but you have yet to show the
> atmospheric downward IR flux does not delay in the transfer of energy
> from the hot sink to the cold sink. For if it does the comparison is
> validated including the green house effect you have no point except to
> act rather dishonest about the entire thread.
You are the person who proposes the CO2 as insulation blanket analogy.
You have to give the evidence that it is a useful analogy. The downward IR
flux is just what is called "thermal molecular agitation" or "atmospheric
pressure" or "temperature", by no means cold gases in the higher
atmosphere can heat the warmer ground.
>
> Information about earth's atmosphere.
>
> http://www.mnsu.edu/weather/upper/500temp.html
>
> http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/About_AIRS_CO2_Data/
You provide no quote because those references don't support your CO2 as
an insulating blanket analogy. You just try to hide its irrelevance
behind a screen of smoke.
f.u. to global-warming only.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 4:58:20 AM2/9/13
to
On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 12:45:42 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Feb 3, 12:26 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 12:18 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 01/13/2013 08:43 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>>
>> > > On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:56:52 +0100, Tom P wrote:
>>
>> > >> On 01/11/2013 06:26 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>> > >>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:09:01 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>> > >>> wrote:
>>
>> > >>>>> I just stressed that CO2 in the atmosphere of Mars is 15 times
>> > >>>>> denser than on Earth. If CO2 has a dramatic effect on earth, it
>> > >>>>> should have an effect on Mars an order of magnitude or so
>> > >>>>> greater.
>>
>> > >>>> are you claiming the co2 in the martian atmosphere has no
>> > >>>> effect? (because your word game of dramatic seems to be driven
>> > >>>> strictly by your desire to try to marginalize the insulating
>> > >>>> effects of the green house gas)
>>
>> > >>> I just observed that the partial pressure of CO2 in the Martian
>> > >>> atmosphere is 15 times greater that on Earth.
>> > >>> CO2 is not a good insulator, Argon is preferred as an insulation
>> > >>> material. You seem to be confusing several physical notions.
>>
>> > >> No, you are confusing physical notions. ColumbiaAI said it is
>> > >> L_I_K_E an insulator, he did not say it I_S an insulator.
>>
>> > >> In French you can distinguish "même" and "pareil", correct?
>>
>> > > The distinction works for almost anything, except for bosons.
>>
>> > > CO2 is definitely not a good insulator and does not act like an
>> > > insulator in the greenhouse effect.
>> > > Columbia mental representation of the properties of CO2 are false,
>> > > thus most of what he believes on AGW is false too.
>>
>> > That is correct. CO2 is not a good insulator. That does not alter the
>> > fact that it absorbs long wave radiation.
>> > What is your point? We are talking about an analogy.
>>
>> Can you believe how bad he lost it over an analogy, wow.
>
> another example
> http://www.geology.wisc.edu/zircon/Valley2002Cool_Early_Earth.pdf A cool
> early Earth ". Although these events surely caused massive melting
> before 4.45 Ga,
> estimates of surface temperatures after 4.45 Ga depend critically on the
> magnitudes of meteorite bombardment and atmospheric insulation, which
> are uncertain."
This cite doesn't come in support to your CO2 as a blanket analogy. Yes,
the atmosphere has insulating properties, yes CO2 has more or less
average insulating properties among gasses. No CO2 doesn't play a major
role in the atmosphere insulating properties. It plays a role consistent
with its relative abundance: 0.04%.
> On Feb 3, 12:26 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 12:18 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 01/13/2013 08:43 PM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>>
>> > > On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:56:52 +0100, Tom P wrote:
>>
>> > >> On 01/11/2013 06:26 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>> > >>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:09:01 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>> > >>> wrote:
>>
>> > >>>>> I just stressed that CO2 in the atmosphere of Mars is 15 times
>> > >>>>> denser than on Earth. If CO2 has a dramatic effect on earth, it
>> > >>>>> should have an effect on Mars an order of magnitude or so
>> > >>>>> greater.
>>
>> > >>>> are you claiming the co2 in the martian atmosphere has no
>> > >>>> effect? (because your word game of dramatic seems to be driven
>> > >>>> strictly by your desire to try to marginalize the insulating
>> > >>>> effects of the green house gas)
>>
>> > >>> I just observed that the partial pressure of CO2 in the Martian
>> > >>> atmosphere is 15 times greater that on Earth.
>> > >>> CO2 is not a good insulator, Argon is preferred as an insulation
>> > >>> material. You seem to be confusing several physical notions.
>>
>> > >> No, you are confusing physical notions. ColumbiaAI said it is
>> > >> L_I_K_E an insulator, he did not say it I_S an insulator.
>>
>> > >> In French you can distinguish "même" and "pareil", correct?
>>
>> > > The distinction works for almost anything, except for bosons.
>>
>> > > CO2 is definitely not a good insulator and does not act like an
>> > > insulator in the greenhouse effect.
>> > > Columbia mental representation of the properties of CO2 are false,
>> > > thus most of what he believes on AGW is false too.
>>
>> > That is correct. CO2 is not a good insulator. That does not alter the
>> > fact that it absorbs long wave radiation.
>> > What is your point? We are talking about an analogy.
>>
>> Can you believe how bad he lost it over an analogy, wow.
>
> another example
> http://www.geology.wisc.edu/zircon/Valley2002Cool_Early_Earth.pdf A cool
> early Earth ". Although these events surely caused massive melting
> before 4.45 Ga,
> estimates of surface temperatures after 4.45 Ga depend critically on the
> magnitudes of meteorite bombardment and atmospheric insulation, which
> are uncertain."
This cite doesn't come in support to your CO2 as a blanket analogy. Yes,
the atmosphere has insulating properties, yes CO2 has more or less
average insulating properties among gasses. No CO2 doesn't play a major
role in the atmosphere insulating properties. It plays a role consistent
with its relative abundance: 0.04%.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 5:39:37 AM2/9/13
to
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 14:29:22 -0800, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Feb 5, 11:12 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:" From a thin
> layer of gas 70 degrees colder than the surface?"
>
> are you claiming that the downward emission to the lower layers cools
> the lower layers?
Thermal emission is just another word for heat.
Heat never flows from a cold place to a warm place.
> On Feb 5, 11:12 am, emoneyjoe <emoney...@iglou.com> wrote:" From a thin
> layer of gas 70 degrees colder than the surface?"
>
> are you claiming that the downward emission to the lower layers cools
> the lower layers?
Thermal emission is just another word for heat.
Heat never flows from a cold place to a warm place.
Y
Feb 9, 2013, 5:52:27 AM2/9/13
to
> > early Earth ". Although these events surely caused massive melting
> > before 4.45 Ga,
> > estimates of surface temperatures after 4.45 Ga depend critically on the
> > magnitudes of meteorite bombardment and atmospheric insulation, which
> > are uncertain."
>
> This cite doesn't come in support to your CO2 as a blanket analogy. Yes,
> the atmosphere has insulating properties, yes CO2 has more or less
> average insulating properties among gasses. No CO2 doesn't play a major
> role in the atmosphere insulating properties. It plays a role consistent
> with its relative abundance: 0.04%.
THE FORCE which is the one true deity gave carbon mass. The atomic
> > before 4.45 Ga,
> > estimates of surface temperatures after 4.45 Ga depend critically on the
> > magnitudes of meteorite bombardment and atmospheric insulation, which
> > are uncertain."
>
> This cite doesn't come in support to your CO2 as a blanket analogy. Yes,
> the atmosphere has insulating properties, yes CO2 has more or less
> average insulating properties among gasses. No CO2 doesn't play a major
> role in the atmosphere insulating properties. It plays a role consistent
> with its relative abundance: 0.04%.
mass of carbon is roughly 44. This means, that THE FORCE will guide
C02 back to the surface of the Earth to rest with other heavy
elements.
Some have thought that God is looking after this planet and that
climate change is not happening. In one sense this is true, but it is
not a God of Abraham. It is THE FORCE....
-y
Y
Feb 9, 2013, 5:54:51 AM2/9/13
to
On Feb 9, 8:58 pm, Paul Aubrin <chu8i...@free.fr> wrote:
> > early Earth ". Although these events surely caused massive melting
> > before 4.45 Ga,
> > estimates of surface temperatures after 4.45 Ga depend critically on the
> > magnitudes of meteorite bombardment and atmospheric insulation, which
> > are uncertain."
>
> This cite doesn't come in support to your CO2 as a blanket analogy. Yes,
> the atmosphere has insulating properties, yes CO2 has more or less
> average insulating properties among gasses. No CO2 doesn't play a major
> role in the atmosphere insulating properties. It plays a role consistent
> with its relative abundance: 0.04%.
THE FORCE will guide CO2 back to Earth, which (relative to other
> > before 4.45 Ga,
> > estimates of surface temperatures after 4.45 Ga depend critically on the
> > magnitudes of meteorite bombardment and atmospheric insulation, which
> > are uncertain."
>
> This cite doesn't come in support to your CO2 as a blanket analogy. Yes,
> the atmosphere has insulating properties, yes CO2 has more or less
> average insulating properties among gasses. No CO2 doesn't play a major
> role in the atmosphere insulating properties. It plays a role consistent
> with its relative abundance: 0.04%.
atmospheric elements) is a rather heavy element.
-y
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 6:11:28 AM2/9/13
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:48:03 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>> > hockum show us the DATA that was scientificly crooked ( a fact not
>> > in evidence because OTHER folks would jump a the the opportunity to
>> > dethrone the IPCC if they did that.)
>
>> One example, the "hide the decline" trick produces faked data (data
>> which
>
> No evicdence: *DISMISSED!*
You wanted to say: lot of evidence that the "decline" was carefully
hidden not to dilute the (AGW) message. But it surfaced anyway and cannot
be so easily dismissed. I am sorry for you.
If those proxies, for which years after 1960 curves were not plotted,
were more sensitive to some other unknown factor during the end of 20th
century, why should we admit blindly that they faithfully reflected the
temperatures for any other period?
>> > hockum show us the DATA that was scientificly crooked ( a fact not
>> > in evidence because OTHER folks would jump a the the opportunity to
>> > dethrone the IPCC if they did that.)
>
>> One example, the "hide the decline" trick produces faked data (data
>> which
>
> No evicdence: *DISMISSED!*
You wanted to say: lot of evidence that the "decline" was carefully
hidden not to dilute the (AGW) message. But it surfaced anyway and cannot
be so easily dismissed. I am sorry for you.
If those proxies, for which years after 1960 curves were not plotted,
were more sensitive to some other unknown factor during the end of 20th
century, why should we admit blindly that they faithfully reflected the
temperatures for any other period?
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 6:16:30 AM2/9/13
to
On Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:02:24 -0600, josephus wrote:
>> One example, the "hide the decline" trick produces faked data (data
>> which is sold as tree ring data, but partially adulterated to make it
>> One example, the "hide the decline" trick produces faked data (data
>> fancier).
>>
>>
> nonsense thzt is a lie. there is NO SUCH process. that is geek talk
> at worst. and NOT evidence of intention to defraud. that is a pipe
> dream of the denier religion.
The "hide the decline" Nature trick is observable in the Team
publications, for example in the Nature journal, obviously. It was
obviously made with the intention to hide some troublesome fact about the
reliability of some proxy data.
The information surfaced with the CRU emails and has been cross-checked
since. There is no hope to deny it now.
Paul Aubrin
Feb 9, 2013, 6:51:42 AM2/9/13
to
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:31:32 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>> > > Evidence that this evidence is based on dubious "projections" is
>> > > now
>> >
>> > It's measurements from thermometers, Shit-for-brains.
>
>> No, impossible, the attribution of a cause to the evolution of global
>
> And yet scientists measure Earth's global average temperature all the
> time. How do you explain that fact?
Yes, they measure it, but that doesn't (and cannot) lead to the
attribution of a cause. As an analogy, if you plot the content of your
bank account, it won't tell anyone what is the cause of your spendings.
>> > > Evidence that this evidence is based on dubious "projections" is
>> > > now
>> >
>> > It's measurements from thermometers, Shit-for-brains.
>
>> No, impossible, the attribution of a cause to the evolution of global
>
> And yet scientists measure Earth's global average temperature all the
> time. How do you explain that fact?
Yes, they measure it, but that doesn't (and cannot) lead to the
attribution of a cause. As an analogy, if you plot the content of your
bank account, it won't tell anyone what is the cause of your spendings.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages