Are Global Warmists Pulling a Cool Fast One?
d....@hotmail.com
and disband it?
May 05, 2008
Are Global Warmists Pulling a Cool Fast One?
By Marc Sheppard
Mounting evidence of lower temperature trends despite rising
atmospheric CO2 levels is becoming a real problem for the greenhouse
gas crowd. And reports that the cooling appears to follow a period of
dormant solar activity aren't likely to ease their anxieties.
Indeed, without an immediate alarmist course correction, years of "the
science is settled" campaigning could prove for naught, as prolonged
temperature dips decimate the primary anthropogenic argument. After
all, Lord Gore has shouted the IPCC's proclamation of a 0.3°C warming
over the next decade from virtually every rooftop. Given new data
projecting the contrary, he and his green hordes will need to find a
way to not only explain the error, but keep the AGW dream alive.
And perhaps they have.
On April 21st, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory confirmed that an
impending phase shift in a natural climate event would likely bring
colder temperatures for as many as the next 20-30 years, noting that:
"The shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, with its widespread
Pacific Ocean temperature changes, will have significant implications
for global climate. It can affect Pacific and Atlantic hurricane
activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, marine
ecosystems and global land temperature patterns."
Well aware of the impact the news might have on the green-deity IPCC's
warming predictions, the JPL was quick to add that "Sea level rise and
global warming due to increases in greenhouse gases can be strongly
affected by large natural climate phenomenon such as the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation." JPL
oceanographer and climate scientist Josh Willis explained:
"The comings and goings of El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation are part of a longer, ongoing change in global climate. In
fact, these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global
warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite
effect of accentuating it."
Just 10 days later, the results of a model study on another
phenomenon, this time affecting the North Atlantic, were published in
the journal Nature [PDF]. Dr Noel Keenlyside et al, of the Leibniz
Institute of Marine Sciences in Germany, reported that the "conveyor
belt" of southern warm water known as the Meridional Overturning
Circulation is entering a weak cycle. As weak MOC cycles -- which can
last as many as 80 years -- are associated with cooler North Atlantic
temperatures, particularly around Europe and North America, the team
expects global surface temperatures to decrease over the next decade.
Oddly, a similar pattern between the 1940s and 1970s may explain the
cooling of global average temperatures during that period, so assuming
only the "next decade" seems an arbitrary call.
Nonetheless, the German scientists felt compelled to explain their
evident heresy against the church of the IPCC:
"Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase
over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North
Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected
anthropogenic warming."
In case "temporarily offset" proved too vague to the green brigade,
Keenlyside clarified when explaining to Bloomberg News:
"If we don't experience warming over the next 10 years, it doesn't
mean that greenhouse-gas warming is not with us. There can be natural
fluctuations that may mask climate change in the short term.''
And for the benefit of those still concerned, his associate Mojib
Latif, a professor at the Leibniz Institute, spelled it out in no
uncertain terms:
"Just to make things clear, we are not stating that anthropogenic
climate change won't be as bad as previously thought."
It certainly appeared to be merely a typical cover your green ass move
The Very Model of a Modern Solar Minimum
According to UK's Telegraph the report stemmed from "initial findings
from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades," and
readers were reminded that:
"The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of
such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino
cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been
behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998."
Of course, solar activity is also essentially ignored by IPCC models,
and it too saw an apex in 1998. Isn't it interesting how, not unlike
insects scampering from light exposed by a stone overturned, greenies
struggle desperately to avoid directly confronting the power of the
Sun?
Last year, Britain's Hadley Centre, whose decadal models actually do
incorporate sea surface temperatures as well as projected changes in
the Sun's output and the effects of previous volcanic eruptions,
predicted that global warming would slow until 2009 and pick up after
that, with half the years after 2009 being warmer than the warmest
year on record, 1998." Still, they stood solidly behind the IPCC by
predicting that "Over the 10-year period as a whole, climate continues
to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C warmer than 2004."
Then, this past January, the Centre predicted 2008 would be the
coolest since 2000, this time based upon the "strong La Niña in the
tropical Pacific Ocean" exclusively. Mysteriously, they completely
ignored recent news at the time that solar activity had all but come
to a stop -- a factor supposedly included in their modeling.
But last week, rather than disputing the Leibniz Institute oceans-
behavior-only model that suggests not only Hadley, but the IPCC itself
erred, the Centre's Richard Wood stated:
"We've always known that the climate varies naturally from year to
year and decade to decade. We expect man-made global warming to be
superimposed on those natural variations; and this kind of research is
important to make sure we don't get distracted from the longer term
changes that will happen in the climate (as a result of greenhouse gas
emissions)."
Seemingly taking a bullet for the green team, Wood ‘fessed up to last
year's bad prediction when he told reporters that "natural climate
variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the
next 10-year period."
Pretty slick -- by jumping aboard the new model's bandwagon, Wood
managed to again ignore the Solar factor (Cycle 24 is delayed) while
extending the bogus it's-part-nature-but-mostly-mankind safety-net his
group's models had strung by almost 10 years.
On the other hand, in addition to casting great doubt upon his own
group's models, Wood's admission bolstered the doubt that Leibniz's
would already cast upon those of the IPCC. And Wood notwithstanding,
as Dr. Roger Pelke Jr. pointed out in his April 30th Prometheus post
after reviewing the Nature piece:
"If global cooling over the next few decades is consistent with model
predictions, then so too is pretty much anything and everything under
the sun. This means that from a practical standpoint climate models
are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority
in the promotional battle over global climate policy."
Obviously, capitulating now meant accepting the risk of jeopardizing
whatever credibility all previous and future climate models may hold.
Bad move -- or chess move?
Does Anybody Really Know What Climate Is?
Prior to its official release, Keenlyside expressed concerns that his
report might be taken the "wrong way." The good doctor even attempted
to trivialize dissenters by invoking the name of a favorite eco-
boogieman when he lamely lamented "I hope it doesn't become a message
of Exxon Mobil and other skeptics." And just in case his and his
colleagues' tepid reaffirmations of their AGW pledges fell short of
the green mark, reinforcements were immediately dispatched.
Not surprisingly, the alarmist shills at the BBC wrote that the up and
down projections "did not come as a surprise to climate scientists."
No, according to these insufferables, only the ill-informed public
ever believed that "the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s
are a permanent phenomenon."
The New York Times rolled out Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at
the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, CO.
Tremberth told them that "the global climate will continue to be
influenced in any particular decade by a mix of natural variability
and the building greenhouse effect" and that "a cool phase does not
mean the overall theory of dangerous human-driven warming is flawed."
And then added what appears to be the latest greenie talking point:
"Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming
everywhere year after year. It does not happen that way."
Is anyone else noticing a trend developing here, beyond the "we never
said that warming patterns would be steady" shuffle? Each
explanation, whether by Willis, Keenlyside and Latif, Wood, or
Trenberth implies that some climate forces natural are more formidable
than those anthropogenic. This is yet another precarious admission,
indeed - one unlikely to be made were the alternative not somehow more
damaging to their cause.
Now consider this -- it remains an alarmist imperative to
disassociate falling global temperatures and speculation of a possible
impending "little ice age" with the yellow dwarf star we orbit in
general and the late start of Solar Cycle 24 specifically. For
indeed, if we are moving into another solar minimum cycle and global
temperatures continue to plummet while atmospheric CO2 levels continue
to rise, attendance at Al Gore's Scare-Story-Slide-Shows would quickly
drop to close friends and family only. And with boat loads of very
bad wealth-redistribution "climate change" legislation to pass in
coming the years, a sympathetically alarmed press and populace remain
essential during that time.
So what better way to buy time than to cloud the obvious solar
connection by sacrificing their argument against a less threatening
naturally occurring force? And then attributing that force to
occasional periods of cooling by collectively admitting to its
mitigating impact upon AGW forces? Especially when this little
gambit allows them to continue reaping the benefits - for years to
come - of the lie that an unchecked anthropogenic greenhouse gas
effect threatens to literally destroy us all.
Just not quite as fast as they originally thought.
So then, are the greenies simply playing defense, as they have led
many to believe - or is it we who are being played?
Marc Sheppard is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and
welcomes your feedback.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/are_global_warmists_pulling_a.html
at May 06, 2008 - 07:00:06 PM EDT
Sam Wormley
> The world is getting colder. Why not just admit the IPCC is bad idea
> and disband it?
>
People like to conveniently fool themselves.
http://edu-observatory.org/psd/2008/Global_Warming_Workshop.html
V-for-Vendicar
<d....@hotmail.com> wrote
> Mounting evidence of lower temperature trends despite rising
> atmospheric CO2 levels is becoming a real problem for the greenhouse
> gas crowd.
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" = trend
line.
==
1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************=====o
2000 14.33 *****************======o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************==o
2005 14.63 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************===o
2007 14.57 *****************************
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VM
Tom M
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
news:9r7Uj.73745$612....@read1.cgocable.net...
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
Asshole!
Benj
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> <d....@hotmail.com> wrote
"Climate change" is a SEPARATE issue from CO2 "causing" AGW! Quit
trying to fool everyone with your "bait and switch" tactics. How much
do YOU stand to gain from the sale of those "carbon credits"?
moron.
no wait.
dishonest moron.
[Answer to topic question: Yes!]
V-for-Vendicar
"Tom M" <tmi...@umaryland.edu> wrote
> The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
Tom needs to change the subject and fast.
The KKKonservative claim was that temperatures have been falling.
That claim is a lie.
Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" = trend
line.
==
1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************=====o
2000 14.33 *****************======o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************==o
2005 14.63 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************===o
2007 14.57 *****************************
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs
Bill Ward
Excellent example!
zdzis1
report from R
> temp <- c(14.57, 14.33, 14.33, 14.48, 14.56, 14.55, 14.49, 14.63,
14.54, 14.57)
> year <- 1998:2007
> summary(lm(temp~year))
Call:
lm(formula = temp ~ year)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-0.129697 -0.038742 -0.007182 0.057030 0.146545
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) -21.782727 19.927508 -1.093 0.306
year 0.018121 0.009951 1.821 0.106
Residual standard error: 0.09039 on 8 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-Squared: 0.293, Adjusted R-squared: 0.2047
F-statistic: 3.316 on 1 and 8 DF, p-value: 0.1061
which means that there is no evidence for linear trend
lining up << all those "o"'s >> does not mean anything
z
Mike Jr.
Some people. You admit to no uncertainty? None at all?
--Mike Jr
Bill Penrose
> The world is getting colder. Why not just admit the IPCC is bad idea
> and disband it?
>
> May 05, 2008
> Are Global Warmists Pulling a Cool Fast One?
> By Marc Sheppard
I don't see a copyright permission notice.
Dangerous Bill
Lloyd
> The world is getting colder. Why not just admit the IPCC is bad idea
> and disband it?
Why don't you stop lying?
>
> May 05, 2008
> Are Global Warmists Pulling a Cool Fast One?
> By Marc Sheppard
>
> Mounting evidence of lower temperature trends despite rising
Lie.
> atmospheric CO2 levels is becoming a real problem for the greenhouse
> gas crowd. And reports that the cooling appears to follow a period of
> dormant solar activity aren't likely to ease their anxieties.
>
> Indeed, without an immediate alarmist course correction, years of "the
> science is settled" campaigning could prove for naught, as prolonged
> temperature dips decimate the primary anthropogenic argument. After
> all, Lord Gore has shouted the IPCC's proclamation of a 0.3°C warming
> over the next decade from virtually every rooftop. Given new data
> projecting the contrary, he and his green hordes will need to find a
> way to not only explain the error, but keep the AGW dream alive.
>
Only if you have a 5th grade understanding of science.
Yes, all the experts you just cited also agree with AGW. You cited
them; why don't you believe them?
> In case "temporarily offset" proved too vague to the green brigade,
> Keenlyside clarified when explaining to Bloomberg News:
>
> "If we don't experience warming over the next 10 years, it doesn't
> mean that greenhouse-gas warming is not with us. There can be natural
> fluctuations that may mask climate change in the short term.''
>
> And for the benefit of those still concerned, his associate Mojib
> Latif, a professor at the Leibniz Institute, spelled it out in no
> uncertain terms:
>
> "Just to make things clear, we are not stating that anthropogenic
> climate change won't be as bad as previously thought."
>
> It certainly appeared to be merely a typical cover your green ass move
>
> The Very Model of a Modern Solar Minimum
>
> According to UK's Telegraph the report stemmed from "initial findings
> from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades," and
> readers were reminded that:
>
> "The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of
> such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino
> cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been
> behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998."
>
> Of course, solar activity is also essentially ignored by IPCC models,
> and it too saw an apex in 1998. Isn't it interesting how, not unlike
> insects scampering from light exposed by a stone overturned, greenies
> struggle desperately to avoid directly confronting the power of the
> Sun?
>
As the Royal Society said, it's been investigated and found to not be
the cause of the current warming. So you're lying again.
So why didn't he publish in one of those scientific journals?
> ...
>
> read more »
Learn. Some. Science.
Cato
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "Tom M" <tmil...@umaryland.edu> wrote
hmmm... what do I see here.... ??? 1998 14.57.. then every year
from then is lower except for one that is higher (2005) and one that
is equal (2007)
Doesn't seem to be out of the normal range of variability to me.
Terrifying !!! We are all going to melt. lol Launch the
lifeboats the ship is sinking...
"The sky is falling... the sky is falling" - Chicken Little
John M.
Somewhat luckily, the people who really matter seem to see it
differently - you (and I) are superfluous. Just hope they act faster
than they seem to be doing presently.
> Terrifying !!! We are all going to melt. lol Launch the
> lifeboats the ship is sinking...
> "The sky is falling... the sky is falling" - Chicken Little
Your point being what exactly? That thousands of peer-reviewed
scientific papers are totally off the wall? What are the chances of
such a thing, given the outstanding success of science over the course
of the last hundred years?
Mike
What are the odds that the climate models cited by those peer reviewed
papers are based on the invalid assumption of semi-infinite
atmospere? Oh, you were using a bandwagon appeal instead of the
scientific method. My apologies.
--Mike Jr
>
> - Show quoted text -
Claudius Denk
wrote:
It's unfortunate that "the people who really matter" are unable to
provide us a reference to their imagination.
> Just hope they act faster
> than they seem to be doing presently.
>
> > Terrifying !!! We are all going to melt. lol Launch the
> > lifeboats the ship is sinking...
> > "The sky is falling... the sky is falling" - Chicken Little
>
> Your point being what exactly? That thousands of peer-reviewed
> scientific papers are totally off the wall?
Yet not a single one of them can explicate the premise that CO2 can
cause atmospheric warming--not one!
> What are the chances of
> such a thing, given the outstanding success of science over the course
> of the last hundred years?
Irrelevant.
Tunderbar
Notice how the temps vs co2 graph got squished into a very short time
line and the line seems to be drawn kinda thick. It looks like the
person who drafted the graph wanted to obscure the details of the
graphs lines and the fact that temps go up before co2 and not the
other way around.
Here is a better look at the same data, spread out a bit:
http://copperas.com/globalwarming/vostok_correlation.jpg
You can clearly see that temperature goes up first, then co2.
Tunderbar
Where are you getting these figures from?
Tom M
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:e708dc8c-779e-4edb...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Irrelevant.
Agreed. He should say "given the outstanding success(es and failures) of
Tom M
"Tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0e03be8b-7e71-4f27...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
From the church of GW where AG preaches.
V-for-Vendicar
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote
> "Climate change" is a SEPARATE issue from CO2 "causing" AGW!
The issue is anthropogenic climate change. Principally resulting from the
billions of tonnes of CO2 that man is pumping into the earth's atmosphere.
V-for-Vendicar
> Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" = trend
> line.
>
> ==
>
> 1998 14.57 *********************o*****
> 1999 14.33 *****************=====o
> 2000 14.33 *****************======o
> 2001 14.48 ************************o
> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
> 2004 14.49 *************************==o
> 2005 14.63 *****************************o**
> 2006 14.54 ***************************===o
> 2007 14.57 *****************************
>
> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
>
> And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> hmmm... what do I see here.... ??? 1998 14.57.. then every year
> from then is lower except for one that is higher (2005) and one that
> is equal (2007)
The best curve fit to the data is the line shown. And it has a slope of
2'C per century.
The numerical method used is the standard method used in science. The
line chosen minimizes the square of the distances between the data points
and the line.
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> Doesn't seem to be out of the normal range of variability to me.
It isn't since it's only over a 10 year time span. Now going back 100
years the increase is .74'C which is way outside the normal range of climate
variability.
But again you are too stupid, or too corrupt to remain on topic.
The denialist claim is that the world is cooling. The data shows
otherwise, and shows them (you) to be liars.
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> Terrifying !!! We are all going to melt. lol Launch the
> lifeboats the ship is sinking...
> "The sky is falling... the sky is falling" - Chicken Little
Those are your words... Not mine... Shit Sack.
V-for-Vendicar
> Your point being what exactly? That thousands of peer-reviewed
> scientific papers are totally off the wall? What are the chances of
> such a thing, given the outstanding success of science over the course
> of the last hundred years?- Hide quoted text -
"Mike" <n00...@comcast.net> wrote
> What are the odds that the climate models cited by those peer reviewed
> papers are based on the invalid assumption of semi-infinite
> atmospere?
Semi-infinite... Ahahahahahah
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
Climate models model the earth's atmosphere in 3 dimensions none of which
are semi-infinite since two of the dimensions are angles and the third a
finite thickness.
"Mike" <n00...@comcast.net> wrote
> Oh, you were using a bandwagon appeal instead of the scientific method.
> My apologies.
The peer reviewed journal articles provide the scientific method. The
power of science is that there is no need to recreate their method in order
to use their results.
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Yet not a single one of them can explicate the premise that CO2 can
> cause atmospheric warming--not one!
Well certainly none of them that you can understand.
Because you can't understand a single one. Not one.
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
"zdzis1" <zdz...@31.pl> wrote
> Residual standard error: 0.09039 on 8 degrees of freedom
> Multiple R-Squared: 0.293, Adjusted R-squared: 0.2047
> F-statistic: 3.316 on 1 and 8 DF, p-value: 0.1061
>
> which means that there is no evidence for linear trend
Ah you have the program but are too stupid to know how to use it.
A r-squared value of .29 indicated correlation that is not particularly
strong. But then what do you expect with such a small sample size?
Now Shit Sack. Take any line with a negative slope (claimed cooling) and
compute R**2, and the value will be far worse.
So the premise that the earth is cooling is disproved.
And the Denialists are thus proven to be liars..... Again.
MMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
> Here are the global average temperatures over the last decade. "o" = trend
> line.
>
> ==
>
> 1998 14.57 *********************o*****
> 1999 14.33 *****************=====o
> 2000 14.33 *****************======o
> 2001 14.48 ************************o
> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
> 2004 14.49 *************************==o
> 2005 14.63 *****************************o**
> 2006 14.54 ***************************===o
> 2007 14.57 *****************************
>
> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
>
> And the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VM
"Tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote>
> Where are you getting these figures from?
Why do you need to ask the same questions hundreds of times after they
have been answered hundreds of times?
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
"Tom M" <tmi...@umaryland.edu> wrote
> From the church of GW where AG preaches.
Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
(06-27) 18:15 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al
Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.
The former vice president's movie - replete with the prospect of a flooded
New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening
droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets - mostly got the
science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read
the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone
for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate
change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited
release, or read the book.
But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed
the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade
catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of
Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important
material and got it right."
Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow
presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.
"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said.
"After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a
lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."
Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took
a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."
The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and
less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician
explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of
the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at
the Climate Institute in Washington.
One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming.
That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited
five recent scientific studies to support his view.
"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and
unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts
associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific
consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology
and oceanography.
Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of
the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the
Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link
between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.
While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden
warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was
too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the
problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in
habit - such as changing light bulbs - the world could help slow or stop
global warming.
While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May,
that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President
Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency
and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie
is on his to-see list.
"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if
you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives
you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global
warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere
every day."
As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences
professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I
was on the edge of my chair."
zdzis1
You people really know nothing about statistics ... it's good that AGW
methodology is not used for building bridges.
Look at the p-value
"MMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNN" - it says that
the slope could well be zero. R^2 can be interpreted once you have
established that your model works. Look it up somewhere ... look out for
p-value which seems to be a totally unknown concept to you.
and by the way - I never said the Earth is cooling - I only say you are
completely ignorant
z
John M.
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Gobbledegook. Nothing singular can be both success and failure. These
words are antonyms.
John M.
Arrhenius, S. 1896 On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon
the Temperature of the Ground. Phil. Mag and J. Sci. (Vth Ser): 41,
237–275.
Thomas Heger
> disassociate falling global temperatures and speculation of a possible
> impending "little ice age" with the yellow dwarf star we orbit in
> general and the late start of Solar Cycle 24 specifically. For
> indeed, if we are moving into another solar minimum cycle and global
> temperatures continue to plummet while atmospheric CO2 levels continue
> to rise, attendance at Al Gore's Scare-Story-Slide-Shows would quickly
> drop to close friends and family only. And with boat loads of very
> bad wealth-redistribution "climate change" legislation to pass in
> coming the years, a sympathetically alarmed press and populace remain
> essential during that time.
I'm trying something with GR and quaternions. From that model follows a
very strange relation to climatic models:
there is a periodic of climatic changes that is related to the movement
of the north pole. That is not the reason but the indicator.
It's quite difficult to explain, but try to imagine a very big tumbling
disk. The day we reach this, its like reaching a horizon and the pole
would flip as we dive onto the other side. That is related to
thermodynamics, so with this process it gets suddenly cold.
Thomas Heger
Whata Fool
People who really matter huh, who are they, never heard of them.
> - you (and I) are superfluous. Just hope they act faster
>than they seem to be doing presently.
Do you mean that Algore should fly to a few more places far and
wide and burn a few more hundred thousand gallons of jet fuel?
>> Terrifying !!! We are all going to melt. lol Launch the
>> lifeboats the ship is sinking...
>> "The sky is falling... the sky is falling" - Chicken Little
>
>Your point being what exactly? That thousands of peer-reviewed
>scientific papers are totally off the wall? What are the chances of
>such a thing, given the outstanding success of science over the course
>of the last hundred years?
There is no science in computers predicting warmer temperatures,
even if there was it will be as warm as it was in what, 1932? WOW!
People have survived temperatures 30 degrees F higher than the
normal summer highs in Europe, and people have survived temperatures
30 degrees colder than normal winter lows in Europe.
It costs a lot less to run an air conditioner than to heat a
house, is that bad? New York City streets will be under water
in 5000 years, count on it, no matter what the temperatures are.
The left seems to be pessimistic about everything, is it the
food they eat, or the lack of faith? Godless socialist scientists
seem to forget the electorate they depend on are very religious,
we will have to wait to see hoe that turns out.
But don't look for any major changes other than the continued
improvements in technology that will help reduce energy use, and
improve life.
That will happen in spite of cooler temperatures, or Algore
screaming and squirming.
Mike
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> > Your point being what exactly? That thousands of peer-reviewed
> > scientific papers are totally off the wall? What are the chances of
> > such a thing, given the outstanding success of science over the course
> > of the last hundred years?- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> > What are the odds that the climate models cited by those peer reviewed
> > papers are based on the invalid assumption of semi-infinite
> > atmospere?
>
> Semi-infinite... Ahahahahahah
>
> MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
Ad hominem attack. Yawn.
>
> Climate models model the earth's atmosphere in 3 dimensions none of which
> are semi-infinite since two of the dimensions are angles and the third a
> finite thickness.
Careful, you but betray your ignorance. Try getting educated. See,
for example,
http://books.google.com/books?id=f75C_GN9KZwC&pg=PA344&lpg=PA344&dq=%22semi+infinite+atmosphere%22&source=web&ots=-PdXj22sj_&sig=cG91y9etaH6S_519vcElaRG-sl8&hl=en
To relate the total IR absorber amount to the flux densities the most
suitable parameter is the total IR flux optical depth. The standard
computation (see for example Goody and Young, 1989) relies on the
validity of the Eddington approximation.
The problem is that the Eddington approximation has been assumed to be
valid for optically thin atmospheres; it is not.
The Eddington approximation (i.e. a semi-infinite atmosphere) assumes
that at the lower boundary the total flux optical depth is infinite.
Therefore, in cases, where a significant amount of surface transmitted
radiative flux is present in the out going long wave radiation the
standard equations used by all those climate models are inherently
incorrect. The classic solutions overestimate surface upward radiation
by about 30% and underestimate the upward atmospheric radiation by
about 8%.
Your hand tuned models are junk.
--Mike Jr.
>
> "Mike" <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > Oh, you were using a bandwagon appeal instead of the scientific method.
> > My apologies.
>
> The peer reviewed journal articles provide the scientific method. The
> power of science is that there is no need to recreate their method in order
> to use their results.
Um, what? Try responding to the actual comment.
>
> MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN
Oh how my feeling are hurt. Sniff, sob. That will put me in place.
Get a clue.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> Arrhenius, S. 1896 On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon
> the Temperature of the Ground. Phil. Mag and J. Sci. (Vth Ser): 41,
> 237–275.
Do me a lemmon. A decent highschool student could pick that
one apart.
Socks
Ouroboros_Rex
"Puppet_Sock" <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c9a0591f-4f4a-432d...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
LOL In 1896? Do tell.
V-for-Vendicar
"zdzis1" <zdz...@31.pl> wrote
> Look at the p-value
> "MMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNN" - it says that
> the slope could well be zero. R^2 can be interpreted once you have
> established that your model works. Look it up somewhere ... look out for
> p-value which seems to be a totally unknown concept to you.
The claim has been that the earth is cooling. And that would make the
slope smaller than zero. Negative in fact.
And the p value doesn't say that the slope could be zero. Doofus.
"zdzis1" <zdz...@31.pl> wrote
> and by the way - I never said the Earth is cooling - I only say you are
> completely ignorant
Yes, well others have and continue to make such statements. Their
principle argument is that if you draw a line between the end points of the
time series - ignoring the interior data, then the slope of that line is the
trendline for the series.
Now, feel free to compute the statistical probability that the slope is
positive, and negative.
Get back to us with your results.
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote
> Do you mean that Algore should fly to a few more places far and
> wide and burn a few more hundred thousand gallons of jet fuel?
At least that much. Gore has been extremely successful in bringing
attention to the Global Warming Crisis that is unfolding.
The cost of the fuel consumed is greatly outweighted by the benefits it
has purchased.
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
>> Semi-infinite... Ahahahahahah
>>
>> MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
"Mike" <n00...@comcast.net> wrote
> Ad hominem attack. Yawn.
A classification.
>> Climate models model the earth's atmosphere in 3 dimensions none of
>> which
>> are semi-infinite since two of the dimensions are angles and the third a
>> finite thickness.
"Mike" <n00...@comcast.net> wrote
> Careful, you but betray your ignorance.
Please tell us. Which dimension of the earth's atmosphere is
semi-infinite?
Ahahahahahahahaha
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
"Mike" <n00...@comcast.net> wrote
> To relate the total IR absorber amount to the flux densities the most
> suitable parameter is the total IR flux optical depth. The standard
> computation (see for example Goody and Young, 1989) relies on the
> validity of the Eddington approximation.
>
> The problem is that the Eddington approximation has been assumed to be
> valid for optically thin atmospheres; it is not.
The Edington approximation comes from an era where numerical integration was
so labor intensive and impractical to be impossible.
Modern desktop computers perform in a tiny fraction of a second more
numerical calculations than were computed from the start of time to
Edington's day.
VALIDITY OF THE EDDINGTON APPROXIMATION TO THE RADIATIVE TRANSPORT EQUATION,
Abstract : The mean intensity of the radiation field, J, is calculated
assuming various LTE and non-LTE source functions using both the exact
expressions and the Eddington approximation, for planeparallel geometries.
The results are used to determine the maximum error encountered in using the
Eddington approximation and the optical depth where the maximum error occurs
in layers of various thicknesses. It is found that by assuming the Krook
modification of the surface boundary conditions the maximum error to be
encountered is generally less than 10-15% as long as the total optical
thickness of the layer is greater than or approximately unity.
Accession Number : AD0468719, Author Kulander, John L., JUL 1965
> The Eddington approximation (i.e. a semi-infinite atmosphere) assumes
> that at the lower boundary the total flux optical depth is infinite.
> Therefore, in cases, where a significant amount of surface transmitted
> radiative flux is present in the out going long wave radiation the
> standard equations used by all those climate models are inherently
> incorrect.
You do realize don't you that the calculations that describe a pendula and
springs are also incorrect, and all of Newton's laws of motion are known to
be incorrect. In fact, virtually every function written in every physics
text is known to be incorrect.
Yet within their range of applicability they work very well don't they?
"Mike" <n00...@comcast.net> wrote
> The classic solutions overestimate surface upward radiation
> by about 30% and underestimate the upward atmospheric radiation by
> about 8%.
Well that is entirely wrong, as the reference above indicates.
But one has to wonder how you know it's wrong? Did a magic radiation elf
tell you? Or were do you claim that there is a more accurate method of
computing the temperature profile?
And if there is, prove to us that it's not being used in the climate
models.
We await your response with laughter.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
MMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNN
zdzis1
regression? Please answer and cite your source.
> Now, feel free to compute the statistical probability that the slope
> is
> positive, and negative.
>
the 95% confidence interval for the slope is (see the R output above)
(0.018121-1.96*0.009951, 0.018121+1.96*0.009951)=(-0.00138296, 0.03762496)
thus it could be positive and it could be negative - that's all we know.
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
disclaimer:
the linear model is obviously bullshit here, but M-for-Moron's asterisk-
and-o's approach is simply hilarious - linear model just puts it in
prespective
Tom M
"zdzis1" <zdz...@31.pl> wrote in message news:g00r77$nsu$1...@news.onet.pl...
You got it. But I think it is B-for-Boring.
T
Claudius Denk
You are demonstrating the whacko mindset. Arrhenius did nothing more
than make back-of-the-envelope speculations about CO2 and atmospheric
temperatures.
Get a clue.
Paul Mays
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote in message
news:dKPUj.77709$dA2....@read2.cgocable.net...
Say What!... Gore is making a mint on idiots that
think planting a tree over there will save the planet.
20 years ago we were gona die in a ice age and 40
years ago we were going to drown because the Ice
Caps were melting and in a few years we will be
hearing of ice covered cities.
Its arrogance to think that he, you or anyone knows
what the "Best" environment is in the first place. While
you may sit and watch pretty sun sets in your solar powered
enviro friendly home, I think the folks that haven't seen
rain in the last 100 years that are now getting some might
think a bit of a change is refreshing. Is this the Best of times
or when in the times where vast tundra's could out produce all
the fields we farm now. We haven't a clue if tomorrow the sun
drops output by .00000000001% and we head for a Ice Age the
CO2 might save us from the freeze. The volcano that just popped
stuck more CO2 and other bad crap in the air than the U.S. has in
the last 200 years. Antarctica had a 20% ice shelf increase this
year from last and Gore shows Florida being washed away "IF"
the polar ice shelf's melt. He included Antarctic and all he wanted is for
idiots to buy carbon credits and go green, which of course he
makes enough money on to have several huge homes to use
ever drop of energy he can.
--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf
--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"
kT
> Its arrogance to think
Then you're good to go!
Cato
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "Tom M" <tmil...@umaryland.edu> wrote
More good evidence that being smart doesn't stop you from being
either a total idiot or a propogandist supporter for the far left.
Being smart didn't stop Dr. Mengele from being a sick killer...
Wingers of either the extreme left, or the extreme right, who are
highly educated are very dangerous, and able to fool the naive masses.
Mike
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> >> Semi-infinite... Ahahahahahah
>
> >> MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
>
> "Mike" <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > Ad hominem attack. Yawn.
>
> A classification.
>
> >> Climate models model the earth's atmosphere in 3 dimensions none of
> >> which
> >> are semi-infinite since two of the dimensions are angles and the third a
> >> finite thickness.
>
>
> > Careful, you but betray your ignorance.
>
> Please tell us. Which dimension of the earth's atmosphere is
> semi-infinite?
>
> Ahahahahahahahaha
>
> MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
>
>
> > To relate the total IR absorber amount to the flux densities the most
> > suitable parameter is the total IR flux optical depth. The standard
> > computation (see for example Goody and Young, 1989) relies on the
> > validity of the Eddington approximation.
>
> > The problem is that the Eddington approximation has been assumed to be
> > valid for optically thin atmospheres; it is not.
>
> The Edington approximation comes from an era where numerical integration was
> so labor intensive and impractical to be impossible.
>
> Modern desktop computers perform in a tiny fraction of a second more
> numerical calculations than were computed from the start of time to
> Edington's day.
>
> VALIDITY OF THE EDDINGTON APPROXIMATION TO THE RADIATIVE TRANSPORT EQUATION,
>
> Abstract : The mean intensity of the radiation field, J, is calculated
> assuming various LTE and non-LTE source functions using both the exact
> expressions and the Eddington approximation, for planeparallel geometries.
> The results are used to determine the maximum error encountered in using the
> Eddington approximation and the optical depth where the maximum error occurs
> in layers of various thicknesses. It is found that by assuming the Krook
> modification of the surface boundary conditions the maximum error to be
> encountered is generally less than 10-15% as long as the total optical
Moron (that's your nom de plume isn't it; you end all your posts with
it),
Thank you for proving my point. A 10-15% error in the climate models
is absolutely huge. Remember that the problem with the Eddington
approximation is that it assumes that none of the IR radiation
reflecting off the surface exits the top of the atmosphere into
space. This is why the climate models consistently over estimate the
green house effect. This is why the climate models used by the IPCC
are junk.
> thickness of the layer is greater than or approximately unity.
>
> Accession Number : AD0468719, Author Kulander, John L., JUL 1965
>
> > The Eddington approximation (i.e. a semi-infinite atmosphere) assumes
> > that at the lower boundary the total flux optical depth is infinite.
> > Therefore, in cases, where a significant amount of surface transmitted
> > radiative flux is present in the out going long wave radiation the
> > standard equations used by all those climate models are inherently
> > incorrect.
>
> You do realize don't you that the calculations that describe a pendula and
> springs are also incorrect, and all of Newton's laws of motion are known to
> be incorrect. In fact, virtually every function written in every physics
> text is known to be incorrect.
>
> Yet within their range of applicability they work very well don't they?
Um, what? That is supposed to justify a 10-15% (your number; not
mine) over estimation in the green house effect? Moron, are you
drinking?
>
> "Mike" <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > The classic solutions overestimate surface upward radiation
> > by about 30% and underestimate the upward atmospheric radiation by
> > about 8%.
>
> Well that is entirely wrong, as the reference above indicates.
Moron,
You have to apply some boundary correction. The proper correction is
not the Krook modification. Want to know what the proper correction
is? See below.
>
> But one has to wonder how you know it's wrong? Did a magic radiation elf
> tell you? Or were do you claim that there is a more accurate method of
> computing the temperature profile?
Moron,
See http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf . I don't know why I
should be so kind as to straighten you out; must be that didactic
streak in me. Be warned however that this paper requires an actual
understanding of physics to get through. Good luck.
>
> And if there is, prove to us that it's not being used in the climate
> models.
Moron,
Take a look at Goody and Yung, 1989; Stephens and Greenwald,1991;
McKay et al., 1999; Lorenz and McKay, 2003
>
> We await your response with laughter.
Trust me Moron, the laughter is all mine. How many more cow pies do
you care to walk into? <LOL>
--Mike Jr.
>
> Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
>
> MMMMMMOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> You are demonstrating the whacko mindset. Arrhenius did nothing more
> than make back-of-the-envelope speculations about CO2 and atmospheric
> temperatures.
And got the answer pretty much right on.
And did so over 100 years ago.
That makes you a MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> I'm a liar huh?
Observation, out of 20 points listed below. Libertarian Cato is found to
have lied in every instance.
Concludion. Libertarian Cato is a Liar.
Hardly a surprise as I have never encounterd a Libertairan who wasn't a
perpetual liar.
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 1
> Sea level "rising 6 m"
Never stated. Cato's First lie.
> ERROR 2
> Pacific islands "drowning"
Stated in the future tense, not the current tense. Cato's Second Lie.
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 3
> Thermohaline circulation "stopping"
Stated as a possibility - and correctly so. Cato's Third Lie.
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 4
> CO2 "driving temperature"
It does. Cato's Forth Lie.
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 5
> Gore says "global warming" has been melting the snows of Mount
> Kilimanjaro in Africa. It is not.
One researcher claims otherwise. The rest side with Gore. Cato's Fifth
lie.
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 6
> Lake Chad "drying up" Gore says "global warming" dried up Lake Chad in
> Africa. It did not. Over-extraction of water and changing agricultural
> patterns dried the lake, which was also dry in 8500BC, 5500BC, 1000BC
> and 100BC.
Which is Lie number 6 for Cato.
This is what Gore says about Lake Chad...
"Unbelievable tragedies have been unfolding there and there are a lot
reasons for it. Darfur and Niger are among those tragedies. One of the
factors that has been compounding this is the lack of rainfall and the
increasing drought. This is Lake Chad, once one of the largest lakes in the
world. It has dried up over the last few decades to almost nothing."
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 7
> Hurricane Katrina "man made"
Which is lie # 7 for Cato
This is what Gore says about Katrina.
"And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit
Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused
billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit
New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases,
the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll
see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf
over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that
Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there
are no words to describe it. "
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 8
> Polar bears "dying"
Which is lie #8 for Cato
This is what Gore said about Polar Bears.
"So there is a faster build up of heat here at the North Pole in the Arctic
Ocean and the Arctic generally than any where else on the planet. That's not
good for creatures like polar bears that depend on the ice. A new scientific
study shows that for the first time they're finding polar bears that have
actually drowned, swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice.
They did not find that before."
Which is correct.
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 9
>Gore says coral reefs are "bleaching" because of "global warming."
> They are not. There was some bleaching in 1998, but this was caused by
> the exceptional El Nino Southern Oscillation that year.
Which is error #9 from Cato.
And what is El Nino? A Warming of the Pacific surface waters.
So acccording to Cato, here, it isn't the warming of the earth's oceans
that causes coral bleaching, in th pacific, it's the rise of pacific ocean
temperatures.
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNN
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 10
> 100 ppmv of CO2 "melting mile-thick ice"
And that is lie 10 out of 10 for Cato.
The phrase "melting mile-thick ice." never appears in Gores Documentary.
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 11
> Hurricane Caterina "manmade"
Which is lie # 11 for Cato A repeat of Lie #7
This is what Gore says about Katrina.
"And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit
Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused
billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit
New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases,
the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll
see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf
over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that
Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there
are no words to describe it. "
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 12
> Japanese typhoons "a new record"
Which is lie # 12 for Cato.
Warmer Seas Creating Stronger Hurricane, Study Confirms
by Ker Than
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0317-08.htm
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 13
> Hurricanes "getting stronger"
Which is lie # 13 for Cato
.
Warmer Seas Creating Stronger Hurricane, Study Confirms
by Ker Than
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0317-08.htm
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 14
> Big storm insurances losses "increasing"
Which is lie # 14 for Cato
Weather-Related Insurance Losses Doubled in '07
30 Dec 07
Losses to insurers from natural disasters nearly doubled this year to just
below $30 billion globally after an unusually quiet 2006, a leading
reinsurer said, from winter storms in Europe, flooding in Britain and
wildfires in the U.S.
http://www.desmogblog.com/weather-related-insurance-losses-doubled-in-07
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 15
> Mumbai "flooding"
Which is lie # 15 for Cato.
Mumbai did flood.
The Maharashtra floods of 2005 refers to the flooding of many parts of the
Indian state of Maharashtra including large areas of the metropolis Mumbai,
a city located on the coast of the Arabian Sea, on the western coast of
India, in which at least 1,000 people died. It occurred just one month after
similar flooding in Gujarat.
The floods were caused by the eighth heaviest ever recorded 24-hour rainfall
figure of 944 mm (37.2 inches) which lashed the metropolis on 26 July 2005,
and intermittently continued for the next day. 644 mm (25.4 inches) was
received within the 12-hr period between 8am and 8pm. Torrential rainfall
continued for the next week.
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 16
> Severe tornadoes "more frequent"
Which is lie # 16 for Cato.
Reconstructing the frequency of tornado occurrence in the central United
States
Matthew J. Menne, NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC, Asheville, NC
Evidence is presented that the apparent decrease in strong-to-violent
tornado frequency since 1950 implied by the official storm archive is
inconsistent with the radiosonde record. Abrupt changes in the bias of the
reconstruction, that is, the ratio of the number of tornado soundings
predicted to the number observed, are shown to be coincident with changes in
storm classification procedures that occurred during the 1970s and the early
1990s. Rather than a decrease in frequency since the 1950s, the
reconstruction suggests that supercell tornado frequency has been reasonably
stationary until the 1990s when some increase in frequency is suggested.
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 17
> The sun "heats the Arctic ocean"
Which is lie # 17 for Cato.
The sun does heat the arctic ocean from the moment the sun rises over the
arctic ocean.
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 18
> Arctic "warming fastest" Gore says the Arctic has been warming faster
> than the rest of the planet. It is not.
Which is lie #18 by Cato.
Arctic warming at twice global rate
Shaoni Bhattacharya
17:58 02 November 2004
NewScientist.com news service
Global warming in the Arctic is happening now, warns the most comprehensive
scientific report to date. The reports concludes that the northern ice cap
is warming at twice the global rate and that this will lead to serious
consequences for the planet.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6615-arctic-warming-at-twice-global-rate.html
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 19
> Greenland ice sheet "unstable"
Which is lie #19 by Cato.
The word "unstable" never appears in Gore's award winning documentary - "An
Inconvenient Truth".
"Cato" <cato...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> ERROR 20
> Himalayan glacial melt waters "failing"
Which is lie #20 by Cato.
The word "failing" never appears in Gore's award winning documentary - "An
Inconvenient Truth."
V-for-Vendicar
"zdzis1" <zdz...@31.pl> wrote
>> Now, feel free to compute the statistical probability that the slope
>> is positive, and negative.
>>
> Here you are:
> the 95% confidence interval for the slope is (see the R output above)
> (0.018121-1.96*0.009951, 0.018121+1.96*0.009951)=(-0.00138296, 0.03762496)
> thus it could be positive and it could be negative - that's all we know.
I'm sorry. That didn't answer the question put to you...
What is the probability that the slope is positive?
And what is the probability that the slope is negative?
You were asked for two probabilities, not a single combined probability.
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
"zdzis1" <zdz...@31.pl> wrote
> the linear model is obviously bullshit here,
Oh, I see, it should be quadratic or something. Ahahahahahahahahah
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
Now here is your opportunity to answer the question put to you.
John M.
So may we suppose that your failure to do so indicates you have less
education/IQ than a "decent highschool (sic) student?
Claudius Denk
wrote:
Try to follow. There's nothing to pick apart. Arrhenius never
presented a definitive, testable hypothesis. All he did was make some
vague speculations. Get a clue, dumbass.
John M.
Hey there, Dimmy. You can't pick it apart either , huh?
Claudius Denk
You're such a complete dimwit I can only think you must, in actuality,
be Al Gore.
Admit it, All. John M. is your sockpuppet.
John M.
Stuck for the next move, eh, Dimmy? Here's what you need to do: go to
any half decent citation index and enter the reference I gave you. Not
sure what a citation index is? Perhaps Mummy or Daddy can help you out
with that one.
zdzis1
> "zdzis1" <zdz...@31.pl> wrote
>>> Now, feel free to compute the statistical probability that the slope
>>> is positive, and negative.
>>>
>> Here you are:
>> the 95% confidence interval for the slope is (see the R output above)
>> (0.018121-1.96*0.009951, 0.018121+1.96*0.009951)=(-0.00138296,
>> 0.03762496) thus it could be positive and it could be negative - that's
>> all we know.
>
> I'm sorry. That didn't answer the question put to you...
>
> What is the probability that the slope is positive? And what is the
> probability that the slope is negative?
>
> You were asked for two probabilities, not a single combined probability.
>
> MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
I gave you a typical answer you get in statistics. But if you insist on
separating the two probabilities then OK. Nothing could be easier
slope/sd_slope (where sd_slope is the standard deviation of the slope)
has a t distribution on n-2 degrees of freedom if H0 holds (you were told
to check what H0 is here, so I assume you have done your homework). Now
integrating this t distribution from -inf to -1.82 (which is
just-0.018121/0.009951) we get
1) probability that the slope is negative: 0.053
2) probability that the slope is positive: 0.947
Now, go to the library and check what this means in statistical terms.
> "zdzis1" <zdz...@31.pl> wrote
>> the linear model is obviously bullshit here,
>
> Oh, I see, it should be quadratic or something. Ahahahahahahahahah
You can ahahaha all you want. Linear is bullshit, quadratic is bullsht,
exponential is bullshit etc. The only model which wouldn't be bullshit
would be an INFORMED model that takes into account physics. This model
has yet to be built.
>
> MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
>
> Now here is your opportunity to answer the question put to you.
I have. Now, I remembered asking you a question: what does p-value > 0.05
mean for linear regression. And more speciffically, does it or does it
not mean that the slope could be negative in the discussed case? You are
in a better situation than myself, because you can find your answer in a
book - I have to know mathematics to actually calculate the answers to
your dumb questions.
z
> MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN
nice sig
John M.
Nope. If you knew the mathematical statistics behind data anlysis you
wouldn't be messing with regression on single slices of the data. The
best buy procedure is to take periodic trending samples over the whole
range of available years.
Claudius Denk
wrote:
This is the thing about whackos. They always think they know it all.
But they never do anything. Go ahead, John. Put your money where
your mouth is. What are you waiting for.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
zdzis1
Didn't I just say that linear regression here is bullshit?
And "taking periodic trending samples" doesn't mean anything here either
- there are many approaches to finding, describing and predicting trends.
You need to first define exactly what "taking periodic trending samples"
means, because it is not a standard name (but use mathematical formalism
to define the term - no analogies or stories - just definitions of your
terms). Then explain why you think that this is the "best buy procedure",
but again - no stories and analogies - use mathematical formalism.
I am always eager to learn and I'll be glad to discuss "taking periodic
trending samples" with you.
z
zdzis1
> On May 11, 7:50 am, zdzis1 <zdz...@31.pl> wrote:
>
>> You can ahahaha all you want. Linear is bullshit, quadratic is bullsht,
>> exponential is bullshit etc. The only model which wouldn't be bullshit
>> would be an INFORMED model that takes into account physics. This model
>> has yet to be built.
>
>
> Cuz you sez so, on the usenet, right?
give me an example of such a model
z
John M.
Ah..yes. But then you proceeded to carry it out and to examine and
discuss the results (although to your credit you stopped short of
checking the residuals and computing leverage). Why was that, when you
could have moved immediately to perform a more appropriate analysis?
> And "taking periodic trending samples" doesn't mean anything here either
> - there are many approaches to finding, describing and predicting trends.
> You need to first define exactly what "taking periodic trending samples"
> means, because it is not a standard name (but use mathematical formalism
> to define the term - no analogies or stories - just definitions of your
> terms). Then explain why you think that this is the "best buy procedure",
> but again - no stories and analogies - use mathematical formalism.
>
> I am always eager to learn and I'll be glad to discuss "taking periodic
> trending samples" with you.
The first thing to do when faced with an unfamiliar piece of jargon is
to search for its use elsewhere. The fact that you apparently did not
do so tells me something about you.
So try the web - I got 26 hits on Metacrawler but other search engines
may give more or less than this. Of these, the one that can best meet
your enthusiasm for new knowledge is in a blog by a mathematician:
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/05/selective_data_and_global_warm.php#more
which as luck would have it is on topic for this ng ;-)
Do get back once you've absorbed the general idea. We can discuss
modes of application, and also efficacy, in the context of temperature
records.
zdzis1
>> Didn't I just say that linear regression here is bullshit?
>
> Ah..yes. But then you proceeded to carry it out and to examine and
> discuss the results (although to your credit you stopped short of
> checking the residuals and computing leverage). Why was that, when you
> could have moved immediately to perform a more appropriate analysis?
I was showing that M-for-Moron's analysis was meaningless. With this
small, cherry-picked set of data you can't get statistical significance
even with linear regression, where you lose only two degrees of freedom.
>
> The first thing to do when faced with an unfamiliar piece of jargon is
> to search for its use elsewhere. The fact that you apparently did not do
> so tells me something about you.
>
> So try the web - I got 26 hits on Metacrawler but other search engines
> may give more or less than this. Of these, the one that can best meet
> your enthusiasm for new knowledge is in a blog by a mathematician:
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/05/
selective_data_and_global_warm.php#more
I found this one, and this is why I asked you for a formal exposition of
the method. The guy who writes this blog is not a mathematician - he is a
programmer. He does not know much about mathematics - for example he
mistakes randomness for chaos, which are actually two oposite notions
(chaos if fully deterministic - and please no bwahahahaing before
checking). This is why I asked about a formal introduction to the subject
- the blog is just a bunch of stories, analogies and opinions. I need
something mathematical to be able to form an opinion about a new metod,
and I was unable to find anything like this. So, it is either very new,
or it has been just made up by the blogger. My guess is that such a
method does not exist, but you are welcome to prove me wrong. Just give
me a title of a paper and where it was published and I will be able to
find it.
> which as luck would have it is on topic for this ng ;-)
>
> Do get back once you've absorbed the general idea. We can discuss modes
> of application, and also efficacy, in the context of temperature
> records.
Give me a chance, give me a reference to a paper on the method. Better
still, give me a reference on a paper where the data to which you refer
in your earlier post are analyzed with this method. Don't point me to the
blog - I need a formal, scientific paper.
Let me just add one last thig - this will be a quotation from the author
of the blog, who is answering to a person who is skeptical about his
knowledge:
"I haven't done anything. I haven't done my own analysis of the data. I
want to be clear about that: I'm not an expert, and I haven't done an
independent analysis of the data. I have read several studies, and looked
at their methods, and based on that, I think that the data is highly
consistent and supportive of warming."
So, Johny M, I'm looking forward to your reply containing a reference to
a real, formal scientific paper.
z
zdzis1
>
> Ah..yes. But then you proceeded to carry it out and to examine and
> discuss the results (although to your credit you stopped short of
> checking the residuals and computing leverage). Why was that, when you
> could have moved immediately to perform a more appropriate analysis?
I was showing that M-for-Moron's analysis was meaningless. With this
small, even cherry-picked set of data you can't get statistical
significance even with linear regression, where you lose only two degrees
of freedom.
>
> The first thing to do when faced with an unfamiliar piece of jargon is
> to search for its use elsewhere. The fact that you apparently did not do
> so tells me something about you.
>
> So try the web - I got 26 hits on Metacrawler but other search engines
> may give more or less than this. Of these, the one that can best meet
> your enthusiasm for new knowledge is in a blog by a mathematician:
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/05/
selective_data_and_global_warm.php#more
I found this one, and this is why I asked you for a formal exposition of
the method. The guy who writes this blog is not a mathematician - he is a
programmer. He does not know much about mathematics - for example he
mistakes randomness for chaos, which are actually two oposite notions
(chaos if fully deterministic - and please no bwahahahaing before
checking). This is why I asked about a formal introduction to the subject
- the blog is just a bunch of stories, analogies and opinions. I need
something mathematical to be able to form an opinion about a new metod,
and I was unable to find anything like this. So, it is either very new,
or it has been just made up by the blogger. My guess is that such a
method does not exist, but you are welcome to prove me wrong. Just give
me a title of a paper and where it was published and I will be able to
find it.
> which as luck would have it is on topic for this ng ;-)
>
> Do get back once you've absorbed the general idea. We can discuss modes
> of application, and also efficacy, in the context of temperature
> records.
Give me a chance, give me a reference to a paper on the method. Better
zdzis1
> Here's one, just for starters :
>
> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/modeling/gcms.html
Yawn... it is one of the many models produced by this organisation - none
of which works (this is why they keep changing them). If they did we
would they would have been able to predict last summer or this winter -
which they were not. The fact that people talk about physics while
creating their model does not mean that the model is correct.
>
> Why don't you try learning about them before you go shooting off your
> mouth and letting everybody on to how clueless you are. Start here :
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model
please ... don't make me lough
once again - the fact that people create models does not mean that they
are correct
z
kT
I'll try not to, whatever loughing is, it sounds bad.
> once again - the fact that people create models does not mean that they
> are correct
So, let me get this straight, first you say there are NO models, now
you say the models aren't correct. Why am I not surprised?
Ok, if youz sez souz, on the usenets.
zdzis1
OK, I can agree with you that there are models which include physics. I
think that they do not work.
happy?
z
John M.
> >> Didn't I just say that linear regression here is bullshit?
>
> > Ah..yes. But then you proceeded to carry it out and to examine and
> > discuss the results (although to your credit you stopped short of
> > checking the residuals and computing leverage). Why was that, when you
> > could have moved immediately to perform a more appropriate analysis?
>
> I was showing that M-for-Moron's analysis was meaningless. With this
> small, cherry-picked set of data you can't get statistical significance
> even with linear regression, where you lose only two degrees of freedom.
Your reference to some non-existent analysis by me? is puzzling,
unless I can be persuaded to take the view that you actually haven't a
clue what is going on all around you.
> > The first thing to do when faced with an unfamiliar piece of jargon is
> > to search for its use elsewhere. The fact that you apparently did not do
> > so tells me something about you.
>
> > So try the web - I got 26 hits on Metacrawler but other search engines
> > may give more or less than this. Of these, the one that can best meet
> > your enthusiasm for new knowledge is in a blog by a mathematician:
>
> >http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/05/
>
> selective_data_and_global_warm.php#more
>
> I found this one, and this is why I asked you for a formal exposition of
> the method. The guy who writes this blog is not a mathematician -
> he is a programmer.
You obviously know more about him than he does himself. Are you his
psychiatrist by any chance?
Quote from his blogsite:
"Good Math, Bad Math is a blog which exists for two reasons:
1. For me to ramble about the beauty of mathematics, and try to
share my enthusiasm for the subject.
2. To track down the bozos who use bad math to lie, distort
reality, and in general support bad arguments; demonstrate their
errors and their dishonesty; and generally mock them."
> He does not know much about mathematics - for example he
> mistakes randomness for chaos, which are actually two oposite
> notions (chaos if fully deterministic - and please no bwahahahaing
> before checking).
Quote from the blog in question, which you really should've taken time
to read. Then you could have avoided getting the following egg on your
face.
Quoting Mark Chu-Carroll in http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/05/selective_data_and_global_warm.php#more
"Let me take a moment to explain one very important word in the
discussion above: chaotic. In mathematics, chaos has a very specific
meaning. It doesn't mean random without pattern. It means that there's
a high sensitivity to initial conditions, and a particular kind of
stochastic self-similarity. The canonical example of this is brownian
motion."
I suppose bwahahahaha... is in order at this point, you silly person
you.
> This is why I asked about a formal introduction to the subject
> - the blog is just a bunch of stories, analogies and opinions. I need
> something mathematical to be able to form an opinion about a new metod,
> and I was unable to find anything like this. So, it is either very new,
> or it has been just made up by the blogger. My guess is that such a
> method does not exist, but you are welcome to prove me wrong. Just give
> me a title of a paper and where it was published and I will be able to
> find it.
Why ask me. You have a link to the man whose blog describes it. He
certainly has better access to the essentials (top-rate library
facilities) than I have, retired and living as I do in the back of
beyond. As you have noted below, the blog author has such references
up his sleeve already.
> > which as luck would have it is on topic for this ng ;-)
>
> > Do get back once you've absorbed the general idea. We can discuss modes
> of application, and also efficacy, in the context of temperature
> > records.
>
> Give me a chance, give me a reference to a paper on the method. Better
> still, give me a reference on a paper where the data to which you refer
> in your earlier post are analyzed with this method. Don't point me to the
> blog - I need a formal, scientific paper.
>
> Let me just add one last thig - this will be a quotation from the author
> of the blog, who is answering to a person who is skeptical about his
> knowledge:
>
> "I haven't done anything. I haven't done my own analysis of the data. I
> want to be clear about that: I'm not an expert, and I haven't done an
> independent analysis of the data. I have read several studies, and looked
> at their methods, and based on that, I think that the data is highly
> consistent and supportive of warming."
>
> So, Johny M, I'm looking forward to your reply containing a reference to
> a real, formal scientific paper.
For my part I'm looking forward to your reply, saying that you have
decided to use your time to do some serious study into the statistical
methodology of climate change analyses, instead of seeing if you can
piss higher up the wall than I. Perhaps in that former endeavour you
might succeed though I doubt that you are what you propose yourself as
- some kind of mathematical practitioner.
John M.
By posting this twice, without noticing your error, suggests you
haven't the foggiest notion about your surroundings and are living in
some kind of fantasy world. I do not, so I'm only responding formally
to the first one.
zdzis1
> Your reference to some non-existent analysis by me? is puzzling, unless
> I can be persuaded to take the view that you actually haven't a clue
> what is going on all around you.
I call him M-for-Moron, he calls himself V-for-Vendicar - you can find
his analysis above.
>>
>> >http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/05/
>>
>> selective_data_and_global_warm.php#more
>>
>> I found this one, and this is why I asked you for a formal exposition
>> of the method. The guy who writes this blog is not a mathematician - he
>> is a programmer.
>
> You obviously know more about him than he does himself. Are you his
> psychiatrist by any chance?
>
> Quote from his blogsite:
>
> "Good Math, Bad Math is a blog which exists for two reasons:
>
> 1. For me to ramble about the beauty of mathematics, and try to
> share my enthusiasm for the subject.
> 2. To track down the bozos who use bad math to lie, distort
> reality, and in general support bad arguments; demonstrate their errors
> and their dishonesty; and generally mock them."
about the author
"Mark Chu-Carroll (aka MarkCC) is a PhD Computer Scientist, who works for
Google as a Software Engineer. My professional interests center on
programming languages and tools, and how to improve the languages and
tools that are used for building complex software systems."
programmer - not mathematician
>> He does not know much about mathematics - for example he mistakes
>> randomness for chaos, which are actually two oposite notions (chaos if
>> fully deterministic - and please no bwahahahaing before checking).
>
> Quote from the blog in question, which you really should've taken time
> to read. Then you could have avoided getting the following egg on your
> face.
>
> Quoting Mark Chu-Carroll in
> http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/05/
selective_data_and_global_warm.php#more
>
> "Let me take a moment to explain one very important word in the
> discussion above: chaotic. In mathematics, chaos has a very specific
> meaning. It doesn't mean random without pattern. It means that there's a
> high sensitivity to initial conditions, and a particular kind of
> stochastic self-similarity. The canonical example of this is brownian
> motion."
>
> I suppose bwahahahaha... is in order at this point, you silly person
> you.
This shows why you don't have a clue: BROWNIAN MOTION IS NOT CHAOTIC - it
is a random (or stochastic) process!
>> This is why I asked about a formal introduction to the subject - the
>> blog is just a bunch of stories, analogies and opinions. I need
>> something mathematical to be able to form an opinion about a new metod,
>> and I was unable to find anything like this. So, it is either very new,
>> or it has been just made up by the blogger. My guess is that such a
>> method does not exist, but you are welcome to prove me wrong. Just give
>> me a title of a paper and where it was published and I will be able to
>> find it.
>
> Why ask me. You have a link to the man whose blog describes it. He
> certainly has better access to the essentials (top-rate library
> facilities) than I have, retired and living as I do in the back of
> beyond. As you have noted below, the blog author has such references up
> his sleeve already.
You said that it was a "best buy procedure", so you probably have them up
your sleeves too. Or were you just pretending to know about the method,
when all you actually had was the name copied from some programmer's
blog? GIVE ME A REFERENCE TO THE METHOD - or can't you?
>> Give me a chance, give me a reference to a paper on the method. Better
>> still, give me a reference on a paper where the data to which you refer
>> in your earlier post are analyzed with this method. Don't point me to
>> the blog - I need a formal, scientific paper.
>>
>> Let me just add one last thig - this will be a quotation from the
>> author of the blog, who is answering to a person who is skeptical about
>> his knowledge:
>>
>> "I haven't done anything. I haven't done my own analysis of the data. I
>> want to be clear about that: I'm not an expert, and I haven't done an
>> independent analysis of the data. I have read several studies, and
>> looked at their methods, and based on that, I think that the data is
>> highly consistent and supportive of warming."
>>
>> So, Johny M, I'm looking forward to your reply containing a reference
>> to a real, formal scientific paper.
>
> For my part I'm looking forward to your reply, saying that you have
> decided to use your time to do some serious study into the statistical
> methodology of climate change analyses, instead of seeing if you can
> piss higher up the wall than I. Perhaps in that former endeavour you
> might succeed though I doubt that you are what you propose yourself as -
> some kind of mathematical practitioner.
You can use as many you want - it all boils to one thing: give me a
reference to a mathematical exposition of your "best buy procedure". If
you can't it means that you don't know what you are talking about and are
just trying to save face.
I'm waitinig for the specific reference. Then we will be able to talk.
z
zdzis1
reference to the method please
z
John M.
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:17:32 -0700, John M. wrote:
> > Your reference to some non-existent analysis by me? is puzzling, unless
> > I can be persuaded to take the view that you actually haven't a clue
> > what is going on all around you.
>
> I call him M-for-Moron, he calls himself V-for-Vendicar - you can find
> his analysis above.
So I'm supposed to be psychic, as well as deductive, when I read your
posts.
This shows that you cannot even understand relatively plain English.
What MarkCC says is BM for individual particles is seemingly random
until one factors in the motion of all the other particles. This is an
impossible task even for a super computer, so it is better to treat it
as random, just as one does with some so-called random numbers in
Mathematics, many of which could be deduced by a huge (but sub-
infinite) series of calculations and measurements.
I find your FNTD (farting-and-tap-dancing) routines wearing a bit
thin. So what is your mother tongue? Perhaps we could switch to that
language for a change.
John M.
More FNTD from someone who hides behind a pseudonym.
zdzis1
Random is random, chaotic is chaotic - even wikipedia knows this - your
(and his) narration will not change mathematics. There is no way Brownian
motion could be a chaotic process - it is a complex process (now look up
complexity before answerint), but NOT chaotic.
> I find your FNTD (farting-and-tap-dancing) routines wearing a bit thin.
> So what is your mother tongue?
Polish
> Perahps we could switch to that language for a change.
nie ma problemu - ale z tego co widze twoja znajomosc statystyki i
matematyki jest taka sama jak znajomosc polskiego
All in all you cannot point me to a mathematical reference on your "best
buy procedure" and you cannot explain it yourself. You actually tried to
make people believe that you know something about mathematics by using a
mathematical term and hoping that no one will call your bluff. You lied
about the blogger being a mathematician, you did not recognize the fact
that he confuses chaos with randomness. You yourself have confused chaos
with complexity, which are related, but not identical notions. You
haven't answered any question.
So, what doest that make you, my dear anonymous John M?
anonymously yours
zdzis1
ps. you can still save your face by providing a mathematical account of
your "best buy procedure" - you can cite a paper or you can explain it
yourself
zdzis1
All in all you cannot point me to a mathematical reference on your "best
kT
Ok, that's a start. You admit you were wrong, and it logically follows
that you didn't even bother to look.
> I think that they do not work.
But you don't have a clue why, you just think that all you have to do is
SAY that they don't work, and most of the usenet idiots will buy it.
> happy?
Don't give up your day job at 'BEST BUY'.
zdzis1
I think it should work the other way - people who claim that their models
work should prove this - so far I have seen model working for past data,
but I haven't seen models predicting future correctly. There have been a
few papers summarizing past models which show that reality does not want
to agree with the modellers. But, as you say, what do I know? Perhaps
there are papers showing the prospective value of computer models. If you
know of any such papers please let me know. Show me papers published,
say, in 2005 which correctly predicted weather in 2007/2008 and I will
publicly admit that such models exist. Really.
> > happy?
>
> Don't give up your day job at 'BEST BUY'.
I would first need to get a day job as 'BEST BUY' (I don't even know what
it is). My day job is, believe it or not, modelling biological and
biomedical time series. And no, I'm not going to give it up.
zdzis1
>> models work should prove this
>
Huh? What does it have to do with
> What more proof do you need? You don't seem to understand even what a
> model is, and how a computer actually works.
>
>> so far I have seen model working for past data,
>
> So far you have only demonstrated here that you have ZERO research and
> development skills, don't even bother to do the most cursory searches on
> the subject before you feel you have something to say about it. You are
> an easily identifiable CRACKPOT.
Show me what a cracpot I am and how clever you are - give an example of a
climate model which works correctly.
>
>
>> but I haven't seen models predicting future correctly.
>
> It's the future. We don't know what correctly is, indeed, there is no
> such thing as correct except in mathematics, and Deterministic von
> Neumann machines work just fine in determining correctness of arithmetic
> and logic.
All of them within an axiomatic system? And whad does it have to do with
climate modelling? I'm beginning to suspect you are another "scientist"
who can only regurgitate what he has heart or read on usenet.
>> There have been a
>> few papers summarizing past models which show that reality does not
>> want to agree with the modellers. But, as you say, what do I know?
>
> You don't know shit by the content of your posts.
>
>> Perhaps
>> there are papers showing the prospective value of computer models.
>
> But you can't be bothered with the trouble of typing keywords into the
> search bar, looking at the screen and reading the words, can you.
I have tried, but failed. Even wikipedia says they do not work.
>
>> If you
>> know of any such papers please let me know. Show me papers published,
>> say, in 2005 which correctly predicted weather in 2007/2008 and I will
>> publicly admit that such models exist. Really.
>
> So you admit you don't know the difference between weather and climate
> as well. Why am I not surprised.
See below.
>
>> > > happy?
>>
>> > Don't give up your day job at 'BEST BUY'.
>>
>> I would first need to get a day job as 'BEST BUY' (I don't even know
>> what it is). My day job is, believe it or not, modeling biological and
>> biomedical time series. And no, I'm not going to give it up.
>
> Somebody has to work the machines. That's you.
>
> Leave the science to people who take the time to read it, and consider
> it, and then type letters and words into the search bar. That's not you.
You people have some anger management problem.
So, you can't give me an example ... why am I not surprised.
The truth is that even wikipedia and IPCC admit that the models do not
work as expected - you can check it - it's all there. The list of
problems with computer models is publicly known and none of the currently
used models can solve them correctly - check wikipedia and IPCC latest
document.
Or perhaps there is one? Please cite!
And I actually wanted a paper that predicted weather, not climate, in
2007/2008 for a reason. If you think really hard you may know this
reason.
z
John M.
> On May 12, 10:30 am, zdzis1 <zdz...@31.pl> wrote:
<snip>
> > I think it should work the other way - people who claim that their models
> > work should prove this
>
> Von Neumann machines are deterministic, the models run just fine.
>
> What more proof do you need? You don't seem to understand even what a
> model is, and how a computer actually works.
>
> > so far I have seen model working for past data,
>
> So far you have only demonstrated here that you have ZERO research and
> development skills, don't even bother to do the most cursory searches
> on the subject before you feel you have something to say about it. You
> are an easily identifiable CRACKPOT.
First Law of DWC (dealing with crackpots): "They are crackpots. Normal
discourse is not possible. You cannot have any 'normal' interaction
with them,
Second Law of DWC: There shall be no second law - by virtue of the
relentless logic of the First Law.
As in TD I suspect I have overlooked the Zeroth Law because it was
just too damned obvious ;-))
zdzis1
> First Law of DWC (dealing with crackpots): "They are crackpots. Normal
> discourse is not possible. You cannot have any 'normal' interaction with
> them,
>
> Second Law of DWC: There shall be no second law - by virtue of the
> relentless logic of the First Law.
>
> As in TD I suspect I have overlooked the Zeroth Law because it was just
> too damned obvious ;-))
I am not surprised with this and I understand why you do not want to
continue the discussion. You have just been caught lying and pretending
to know a lot about time series analysis. This should be clear to anyone
who has the time to follow our discussion from the moment you suggested
your "best buy procedure".
z
John M.
Ah... now I remember it...
Zeroth Law of DWC: Crackpots can be easily identified by their claim
that everyone else is lying.
Now, as in TD, I need a Third Law. What can you offer to jog my
memory?
Pozdrowienia, but no serdeczne as you might say.
Claudius Denk
> On May 12, 11:18 am, zdzis1 <zdz...@31.pl> wrote:
>
> > >> I think it should work the other way - people who claim that their
> > >> models work should prove this
>
> > > Von Neumann machines are deterministic, the models run just fine.
>
> > Huh? What does it have to do with
>
> that are reduced to discrete logical software operations, that run of
> discrete digital computing machines.
Yeah, so?
> They run their logical conclusion
> or to a certain resolution or time limit, and you collect the output
> as data, how could they possibly be 'wrong', as you say?
Due to the laws of statistics we know for a fact that these models
almost always are wrong.
>
> They're automata (in a very loose sense of the word).
So what. The statistical certainty on these models after a few hours
is closer to zero than it is to even 1%.
>
> > > What more proof do you need? You don't seem to understand even what a
> > > model is, and how a computer actually works.
>
> > >> so far I have seen model working for past data,
>
> > > So far you have only demonstrated here that you have ZERO research and
> > > development skills, don't even bother to do the most cursory searches on
> > > the subject before you feel you have something to say about it. You are
> > > an easily identifiable CRACKPOT.
>
> > Show me what a cracpot I am and how clever you are - give an example of a
> > climate model which works correctly.
>
> They all do what they were designed to do, that's how properly
> designed machinery operates. In the words of Big Thought himself :
They are worthless for predicting climate.
>
> "I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've
> never actually known what the question is."
We know for a fact--due to the laws of statistics--that these computer
models are worthless. It's not even debatable.
>
> Science is about the continual asking of questions. The models and the
> machines just give you specific answers to specific questions that you
> ask yourself. They work just fine, they could be a lot bigger and
> faster and use less energy, surely, and there are numerous variations
> of deterministic machinery that we are exploring to improve upon them.
You are a complete idiot.
Gets some education in statistics.
zdzis1
> On May 12, 11:18 am, zdzis1 <zdz...@31.pl> wrote:
>> >> I think it should work the other way - people who claim that their
>> >> models work should prove this
>>
>> > Von Neumann machines are deterministic, the models run just fine.
>>
>> Huh? What does it have to do with
>
> The models are composed of mathematical relationships and equations that
> are reduced to discrete logical software operations, that run of
> discrete digital computing machines. They run their logical conclusion
> or to a certain resolution or time limit, and you collect the output as
> data, how could they possibly be 'wrong', as you say?
>
> They're automata (in a very loose sense of the word).
>
>> > What more proof do you need? You don't seem to understand even what a
>> > model is, and how a computer actually works.
>>
>> >> so far I have seen model working for past data,
>>
>> > So far you have only demonstrated here that you have ZERO research
>> > and development skills, don't even bother to do the most cursory
>> > searches on the subject before you feel you have something to say
>> > about it. You are an easily identifiable CRACKPOT.
>>
>> Show me what a cracpot I am and how clever you are - give an example of
>> a climate model which works correctly.
>
> They all do what they were designed to do, that's how properly designed
> machinery operates. In the words of Big Thought himself :
>
> "I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never
> actually known what the question is."
>
> Science is about the continual asking of questions. The models and the
> machines just give you specific answers to specific questions that you
> ask yourself. They work just fine, they could be a lot bigger and faster
> and use less energy, surely, and there are numerous variations of
> deterministic machinery that we are exploring to improve upon them.
>
> [snip illucid crackpot nonsense]
Have you been drinking or smoking something? What the hell does your
stream of consciousness have to do with anything discussed here? This is
some sort of philosophy - the task at hand is to build a mathematical
model which can predict climate and weather changes! There are models for
the spread of diseases, for tumor growth which work just fine. There are
no working models for sinus node, for brain activity, stroke volume etc.
- and it is just fine - we don't know, and we are not afraid to adimt it.
Just produce a model or say you can't do it - there is no shame in it.
You say that I AM A CRACKPOT??? Have you read what you have just
written???
z
And you are saying
zdzis1
Just give me a mathematical description of your "best buy procedure" and
say why it is best and I will retract all I have been saying about you
being a liar. I will start a new thread for this purpose - so, what do
you say?
> Pozdrowienia, but no serdeczne as you might say.
Dla ciebie rowniez pozdrownienia - z tym ze ode mnie SERDECZNE. Zrob
tylko jedno: pokaz matematyczne podstawy swojej "najlepszej metody" -
chce tylko tyle. Jezeli nie jestes w stanie tego zrobic to jestes lgaz,
ktory udaje, ze zna sie matematyce.
z
John M.
Word spaghetti. I could put this to Babelfish, translate to Chinese,
then to Thai, then to Urdu, finally back to English - and it would
have just as much meaning then as it does now.
> > I find your FNTD (farting-and-tap-dancing) routines wearing a bit thin.
> > So what is your mother tongue?
>
> Polish
>
> > Perhaps we could switch to that language for a change.
>
> nie ma problemu - ale z tego co widze twoja znajomosc statystyki i
> matematyki jest taka sama jak znajomosc polskiego
Sprawiać przyjemność wstawiają znaki diakrytyczne. Tłumaczenie maszyny
potrzebują tych.
> All in all you cannot point me to a mathematical reference on your "best
> buy procedure" and you cannot explain it yourself. You actually tried to
> make people believe that you know something about mathematics by using a
> mathematical term and hoping that no one will call your bluff. You lied
> about the blogger being a mathematician, you did not recognize the fact
> that he confuses chaos with randomness. You yourself have confused chaos
> with complexity, which are related, but not identical notions. You
> haven't answered any question.
>
> So, what doest that make you, my dear anonymous John M?
It makes YOU so incompetent that you can't even see my full name in
the addy that accompanies all my posts..
> anonymously yours
> zdzis1
>
> ps. you can still save your face by providing a mathematical account of
> your "best buy procedure" - you can cite a paper or you can explain it
> yourself
To which you will, no doubt, continue your FNTD as you did on April 28
in this final goodbye to a thread involving you and Roger Coppock.
Quote: Zdzisław Crąkpót - "OK then, I will write another analysis -
this time I will disect your misconseptions about the Shapiro-Wilk
test. I will post it to the group as a pdf file very soon."
And then.....nothing. Oh, well, yes... there was "My work here is done
and I'm out of here." on the 1st May. At which point a naughty forger
stole Zdshem's sig and continued to troll the group almost daily with
claims of superior mathematical and statistical abilities. Perhaps
it's Alfred Tarski or Stanisław Ulam back from the dead :-)
I'll end with another quote (Apr 20) which I will paraphrase for
myself.
> That's not very scientific. Wait for what I have to say. I want to be
> thorough so I will not rush my analysis. You will have a chance
> to address the exact points I am going to make. ++ No doubt it will be more FNTD on your part. (added by JHM)
zdzis1
>> nie ma problemu - ale z tego co widze twoja znajomosc statystyki i
>> matematyki jest taka sama jak znajomosc polskiego
>
> Sprawiać przyjemność wstawiają znaki diakrytyczne. Tłumaczenie maszyny
> potrzebują tych.
>> All in all you cannot point me to a mathematical reference on your
>> "best buy procedure" and you cannot explain it yourself. You actually
>> tried to make people believe that you know something about mathematics
>> by using a mathematical term and hoping that no one will call your
>> bluff. You lied about the blogger being a mathematician, you did not
>> recognize the fact that he confuses chaos with randomness. You yourself
>> have confused chaos with complexity, which are related, but not
>> identical notions. You haven't answered any question.
>>
>> So, what doest that make you, my dear anonymous John M?
>
> It makes YOU so incompetent that you can't even see my full name in the
> addy that accompanies all my posts..
so, what is your full name? who are you?
by the way, it is not so difficult to find out who I am and where I live
and work
>
>> anonymously yours
>> zdzis1
>>
>> ps. you can still save your face by providing a mathematical account of
>> your "best buy procedure" - you can cite a paper or you can explain it
>> yourself
>
> To which you will, no doubt, continue your FNTD as you did on April 28
> in this final goodbye to a thread involving you and Roger Coppock.
I am still waiting - just say you have no idea, or provide the details.
> Quote: Zdzisław Crąkpót - "OK then, I will write another analysis - this
> time I will disect your misconseptions about the Shapiro-Wilk test. I
> will post it to the group as a pdf file very soon."
>
> And then.....nothing.
I answered to his misguided interpretation of the Shapiro - Wilk test. I
wanted to develop the answer into a small article, but then I thought
that its not worth it - hardly anyone would understand it. So, if you
want to know what I wanted to say just read my answer to RC's claim that
rounding errors are responsible for the failure of his model. I may still
write the pdf document if people are interested in more detail about the
influence of rouning data on the Shapiro-Wilk test of the residuals. If
there are 5 different people who want to read it I will.
> Oh, well, yes... there was "My work here is done
> and I'm out of here." on the 1st May. At which point a naughty forger
> stole Zdshem's sig and continued to troll the group almost daily with
> claims of superior mathematical and statistical abilities.
Oh, I just couldn't stay away. I am evil by nature and I take pleasure in
tormenting you guys. You have no clue what you are talking about, yet you
claim that you do. It's so funny to see you guys trying to save face!
Take yourself for example. All it would take is just pointing me to a
paper on your "best buy method" or explaining it yourself - I would just
say "OK - it is not a bogus method, it really exists and it is the best
buy" and I would leave you alone. But nooooooo ... you prefer to jump
through the hoops, call me troll, liar, crackpot, finding excuses why you
won't give me the theory, finding my older posts, reading them, re-
reading them, copying them, pasting them, finding a program for
translating from Polish and to Polish. It's really funny! You say I am a
crackpot and you do not want to give me the answer becouse you don't want
to talk to me, and yet you go to all this trouble. And do you seriously
believe that anyone reading this "discussion" still believes you know
anything? If you did you would just give the me the answer and stopped
talking to me!
I'm not claiming "superior mathematical and statistical abilities" - just
average competence. You have nothing for me.
> Perhaps it's
> Alfred Tarski or Stanisław Ulam back from the dead :-)
Actually I am Mikołaj Kopernik back from the dead :-)
See, you can't help it! You even googled the most famous Polish
mathematicians - don't you have anything more productive to do than
taking interest in some crackpot's national heroes?
> I'll end with another quote (Apr 20) which I will paraphrase for myself.
>> That's not very scientific. Wait for what I have to say. I want to be
>> thorough so I will not rush my analysis. You will have a chance to
>> address the exact points I am going to make. ++ No doubt it will be
>> more FNTD on your part. (added by JHM)
See, you read, re-read, copy and paste my older posts - wouldn't it be
more efficient to just answer my question? And if I am a crackpot and you
have your two laws why do you go to all this trouble? Why do you search
the group for my posts?
I'm still wating for your explanation of the method.
z
zdzis1
> [snip illucid crackpot nonsense]
> .
>> You say that I AM A CRACKPOT??? Have you read what you have just
>> written???
>
> as you claim, is not the same as a model. All deterministic models work.
> You don't seem to understand what a model is. Perhaps you should start
> at the beginning, this should bring you up to speed :
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory
O Man! You have outdone yourself. I thought I'd never say it but ...
LOL!!!
You have confused two different areas of mathematics: Model Theory and
Mathematical Modelling! these two have nothing to do with one another. Do
you think that climate modellers use ANY of the methods described in the
article? Christ! Did you chose this wikipedia article because it seemed
complex enough and you did not understand it. You pople are bluffing all
the time! You think that everyone is as dumb as you are!
Now I am ready to be judged. Go ahead!
zdzis1
> On May 13, 7:49 am, zdzis1 <zdz...@31.pl> wrote:
>> > [snip illucid crackpot nonsense]
>> > .
>> >> You say that I AM A CRACKPOT??? Have you read what you have just
>> >> written???
>>
>> > Sure I did, a model that doesn't exist (bizarre as that statement
>> > is), as you claim, is not the same as a model. All deterministic
>> > models work. You don't seem to understand what a model is. Perhaps
>> > you should start at the beginning, this should bring you up to speed
>> > :
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory
>>
>> O Man! You have outdone yourself. I thought I'd never say it but ...
>> LOL!!!
>> You have confused two different areas of mathematics: Model Theory and
>> Mathematical Modelling! these two have nothing to do with one another.
>
> If course they do. Model theory has to do with the FOUNDATIONS of
> mathematics, and thus underlies all representations of physical
> manifestations of nature and reality.
>
>> Do
>> you think that climate modellers use ANY of the methods described in
>> the article?
>
> No, but that doesn't invalidate the foundations of mathematics. Models
> are not reality, they are representations of reality. You are the one
> who is confused.
>
>> Christ!
>
> Oh, fuck you God, his Messiah and your so called book.
>
> My so called book : http://arxiv.org/
>
>> Did you chose this wikipedia article because it seemed complex enough
>> and you did not understand it.
>
> No, I chose it to demonstrate how disconnected models are from reality.
> Before you can begin to model reality, you have to model mathematics.
> Hence ... model theory. You aren't even that far yet.
>
>> You pople are bluffing all the time!
>
> It's easy to do with crackpots like you.
>
>> You think that everyone is as dumb as you are!
>
> No, but I think you are dumber than shit if you think your model has
> anything to do with the reality it is designed to represent. It's a
> model. You operate it, and it gives you data. What you do with the data
> is up to you. You sit here on the usenet, make no models, make no
> attempt to understand models, and then go on to say nobody's models can
> work. All models work. No model is an exact representation of reality.
>
>> Now I am ready to be judged. Go ahead!
>
> Arrogant egotistical uneducated fool. You're a model idiot. At least
> with my own models, I get useful data. You haven't said a single useful
> thing as of yet.
Oh man! That's so funny I'm top-posting it!
z
John M.
> zdzis1 wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Oh man! That's so funny I'm top-posting it!
>
> science and mathematics, you get right back to us, ok? We can hook you
> up with possible publishers right away!
Did you not notice, kT, that Polish top posting is identical to Irish
top posting? ;-)))
Ps,. Handy site you gave:
Pps. I have some very good Irish and Polish friends, so the apparent
national stereotyping jibe is not intended as that - it's a joke.
John M.
> >> nie ma problemu - ale z tego co widze twoja znajomosc statystyki i
> >> matematyki jest taka sama jak znajomosc polskiego
>
> > Sprawiać przyjemność wstawiają znaki diakrytyczne. Tłumaczenie maszyny
> > potrzebują tych.
>
> That's gibberish!
Pity. In English I wrote "Please insert diacritics. Machine
translations need these." I suppose it means we can't converse in
Polish :-(
> >> All in all you cannot point me to a mathematical reference on your
> >> "best buy procedure" and you cannot explain it yourself. You actually
> >> tried to make people believe that you know something about mathematics
> >> by using a mathematical term and hoping that no one will call your
> >> bluff. You lied about the blogger being a mathematician, you did not
> >> recognize the fact that he confuses chaos with randomness. You yourself
> >> have confused chaos with complexity, which are related, but not
> >> identical notions. You haven't answered any question.
>
> >> So, what doest that make you, my dear anonymous John M?
>
> > It makes YOU so incompetent that you can't even see my full name in the
> > addy that accompanies all my posts..
>
> so, what is your full name? who are you?
Your still being totally incompetent. My full name is staring you in
the face, or would be if you knew how to use your newsreader.
> by the way, it is not so difficult to find out who I am and where I live
> and work
I'm sorry to have to tell you, but I don't give a flying fuck who you
are and where you work.
> >> ps. you can still save your face by providing a mathematical account of
> >> your "best buy procedure" - you can cite a paper or you can explain it
> >> yourself
>
> > To which you will, no doubt, continue your FNTD as you did on April 28
> > in this final goodbye to a thread involving you and Roger Coppock.
>
> I am still waiting - just say you have no idea, or provide the details.
Why so impatient. Do you only want half-a-story, or are you still keen
to talk over ideas as you proposed a few posts back?
> > Quote: Zdzisław Crąkpót - "OK then, I will write another analysis - this
> > time I will disect your misconseptions about the Shapiro-Wilk test. I
> > will post it to the group as a pdf file very soon."
>
> > And then.....nothing.
>
> I answered to his misguided interpretation of the Shapiro - Wilk test. I
> wanted to develop the answer into a small article, but then I thought
> that its not worth it - hardly anyone would understand it. So, if you
> want to know what I wanted to say just read my answer to RC's claim that
> rounding errors are responsible for the failure of his model. I may still
> write the pdf document if people are interested in more detail about the
> influence of rouning data on the Shapiro-Wilk test of the residuals. If
> there are 5 different people who want to read it I will.
So you lied when you told us on 29 Apr you would be posting this .pdf
to the group "in a few days"?
Nope. I knew all about these guys. Ulam I came across years ago when I
read a popular book co-authored with Marc Kac. In the book they
discussed the basis of the Banach-Tarski paradox and I got interested
in Tarski's work. I had struggled with a rather similar contradiction
between geometry and algebra and thought he might reveal something
helpful.
> - don't you have anything more productive to do than
> taking interest in some crackpot's national heroes?
I'll ignore that, apart from pointing out that they are in fact more
American heroes than Polish - especially Ulam !!
> > I'll end with another quote (Apr 20) which I will paraphrase for myself.
> >> That's not very scientific. Wait for what I have to say. I want to be
> >> thorough so I will not rush my analysis. You will have a chance to
> >> address the exact points I am going to make. ++ No doubt it will be
> >> more FNTD on your part. (added by JHM)
>
> See, you read, re-read, copy and paste my older posts - wouldn't it be
> more efficient to just answer my question? And if I am a crackpot and you
> have your two laws why do you go to all this trouble? Why do you search
> the group for my posts?
I needed to be sure you were a serious crackpot - like myself. I hate
wasting time on dodgy, trivial crackpots like Cladius Denk, or on
response bots masquerading as crackpots - like mrbwana2u
>
> I'm still wating for your explanation of the method.
Being retired, I am pressed for time, so instant responses are
impossible. I see you are working, so apparently have all day and
night to write to Usenet.
zdzis1
the theory behind your "best buy" - the rest is unimportant.
z
V-for-Vendicar
"zdzis1" <zdz...@31.pl> wrote
> 1) probability that the slope is negative: 0.053
> 2) probability that the slope is positive: 0.947
So with simply 10 years of data, you conclude that there is a 94.7 percent
probability that the Globe is Warming.
Here is some more data for you. Recompute the probability....
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******************o***************
1959 14.06 ********************o************
1960 13.99 *********************o******
1961 14.08 **********************o************
1962 14.04 ***********************o********
1963 14.08 ************************o**********
1964 13.79 **************===========o
1965 13.89 *********************====o
1966 13.97 **************************o
1967 14.00 ***************************o*
1968 13.96 **************************==o
1969 14.08 *****************************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************************o
1971 13.90 **********************=========o
1972 14.00 *****************************===o
1973 14.14 ********************************o******
1974 13.92 ***********************==========o
1975 13.95 *************************=========o
1976 13.84 ******************=================o
1977 14.13 ************************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************************============o
1993 14.14 ***************************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************************o**
1998 14.57
*******************************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************************o*****
2002 14.56
**********************************************************o*********
2003 14.55
***********************************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************************o**
2005 14.62
*************************************************************o**********
2006 14.54
**************************************************************o****
2007 14.57
***************************************************************o*****
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
V-for-Vendicar
>> Oh, I see, it should be quadratic or something. Ahahahahahahahahah
"zdzis1" <zdz...@31.pl> wrote
> You can ahahaha all you want. Linear is bullshit, quadratic is bullsht,
> exponential is bullshit etc. The only model which wouldn't be bullshit
> would be an INFORMED model that takes into account physics. This model
> has yet to be built.
Actually the models have been built. We call them "climate models"..
MMMMMMOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN
But of course, we don't need a climate model to fit a line to a measured
time series. All we need is the data.
And here is a small portion of it.
V-for-Vendicar
"zdzis1" <zdz...@31.pl> wrote
> give me an example of such a model
Here are 8 examples.
a.. Dapper/DChart - plot and download model data referenced by the Fourth
Asssessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
a..
http://www.hadleycentre.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeltypes.html
- Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research - general info on their
models
a.. http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/ - NCAR/UCAR Community Climate System Model
(CCSM)
a.. http://www.climateprediction.net - do it yourself climate prediction
a.. http://edgcm.columbia.edu/ - a NASA/GISS global climate model (GCM) with
a user-friendly interface for PCs and Macs
a.. http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/ - CCCma model info and interface to
retrieve model data
a.. http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov/CM2.X/ - NOAA / Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
Laboratory CM2 global climate model info and model output data files
a.. http://www.climate.uvic.ca/ - University of Victoria Global climate
model, free for download. Leading researcher was a contributing author to
the recent IPCC report on climate change.
V-for-Vendicar
"zdzis1" <zdz...@31.pl> wrote
> Yawn... it is one of the many models produced by this organisation - none
> of which works (this is why they keep changing them).
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN
When you claim that a model doesn't work, what standards are you using?
Lets consider a simple model.. Say the model of a spring. F = -Kd where d
is a displacement from the resting position.
Does that model of a spring work by your standards?
"zdzis1" <zdz...@31.pl> wrote
> If they did we would they would have been able to predict last summer or
> this winter -
> which they were not.
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
Climate models don't predict weather.
You must hold a similar opinion about the validity of all science.
How can physics be correct when it can't predict the position and size of
bubbles in a boiling tea pot?
"zdzis1" <zdz...@31.pl> wrote
> The fact that people talk about physics while
> creating their model does not mean that the model is correct.
True. Certainly your model of how science works is a perfect example of
that.
V-for-Vendicar
"zdzis1" <zdz...@31.pl> wrote
> OK, I can agree with you that there are models which include physics. I
> think that they do not work.
So you are retracting your claim that there were no models?
Can you prove that they produce no statistically significant results?
If so, do so here.