Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 27121 - 27140 of total 27884 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Sketch

Trad climber
Not FortMental
Sep 4, 2014 - 09:40am PT
Sketch, you seem to think that your straight line trends have some relevance, yet they are a poor representation of the data, as is easily seen by eye... can you support why the "straight line trend" should be considered relevant to the discussion?

Obviously, as I have shown time and again, if you extrapolate your straight lines back to 1980 they do not represent the data at all. Having failed that, why should you assume that extrapolating them into the future would be a valid representation of the temperatures?

Your posts always deliver. Between your bogus (read: dumb) inferences and your efforts to talk over laypersons' head, you regularly crack me up.

We should rename this thread "Smart people being stupid".
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 4, 2014 - 09:44am PT
Your assertion is incorrect.


So EDH, you are now going to insist that your work of late (the past couple of years) at Livermore, a contractor of the DOE btw, had absolutely NOTHING to do with nor was profoundly motivated by the recent specific EPA or any other gov't regs/initiatives regarding CC/AGW?
new world order2

climber
Sep 4, 2014 - 10:02am PT
I'd just like Ed to (please) comment on my "assertion" that chemtrails are one result of geo-engineering.

Ed?

Oh look! There's a jet spraying chemicals into the atmosphere!
Oh look! There's a jet spraying chemicals into the atmosphere!
Credit: new world order2
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 4, 2014 - 10:24am PT
Sketch, you seem to think that your straight line trends have some relevance, yet they are a poor representation of the data, as is easily seen by eye... can you support why the "straight line trend" should be considered relevant to the discussion?

Obviously, as I have shown time and again, if you extrapolate your straight lines back to 1980 they do not represent the data at all. Having failed that, why should you assume that extrapolating them into the future would be a valid representation of the temperatures?

Your posts always deliver. Between your bogus (read: dumb) inferences and your efforts to talk over laypersons' head, you regularly crack me up.

Sketch showing that he can't understand what Ed writes, even when Ed boils it down to the simplest of terms.

Now that is a crack up.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 4, 2014 - 10:35am PT
Sketch showing that he can't understand what Ed writes, even when Ed boils it down to the simplest of terms.
All the more reason to completely ignore him.
There is no point in rebutting these clowns' false science posts.
Ignore them, and get on with the discussion of how we deal with the situation.
Sketch

Trad climber
Not FortMental
Sep 4, 2014 - 10:46am PT
Sketch showing that he can't understand what Ed writes.

Okay, Mr. Know-it-all... see if you can back up:
I have shown time and again, if you extrapolate your straight lines back to 1980 they do not represent the data at all.

Let's see (just) two examples of Ed proving what he claimed.

Since you're so smart, tell us why his point is invalid.

why should you assume that extrapolating them into the future would be a valid representation of the temperatures?

Please show where I assumed any of ^this^.

I look forward to reading more classic K-man shuck-n-jive backpedaling. It's always good for a laugh.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 4, 2014 - 10:55am PT
Since you're so smart, tell us why his point is invalid.
    Sketch


His point is valid.

Does that help?


But, perhaps you can further the discussion by explaining why you think Ed's point is not valid. I think that onus is on you.

Maybe you can start by explaining why your trend lines have any relevance to our discussion. Ed takes them apart. Can you provide for why they are worthwhile?
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 4, 2014 - 11:26am PT
Sketch, so quick to jump to name calling.


So quick to run away when asked to defend his attacks.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 4, 2014 - 11:32am PT
There is no point in rebutting these clowns questioning our climate science backed posts. The Climate Science dictates the truth and is the last word on this issue. It is the indisputable gospel.

Fixed it for ya Malnuts.


No, I'm simply showing that An Inconvenient Truth was believed by many in the movie industry to be a film that was well crafted.

As were tens of 1000's of other films in Hollywood's entertainment money making business past. They were all strictly produced and shown for one reason... entertainment.

I will give you credit on that one... the entertainment part. Gore's movie sure was a good comedy and did entertain millions with his well crafted humor.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Sep 4, 2014 - 03:22pm PT
thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/04/3478747/tesla-gigafactory-to-land-in-nevada/

So please explain to me why you would not want these jobs in your state.

Please,consider yourself ,first.

Let's see if you all can read.
thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/04/3478726/futuregen-gets-epa-approval-for-ccs/
Sketch

Trad climber
Not FortMental
Sep 4, 2014 - 03:48pm PT
K-man -

So predictable. You insert yourself in an exchange that doesn't involve you. You insult my intelligence... implying you're smarter.

Since you seemed to think you're so smart, I challenged you on 3 points, all relevant to Ed's post. You ignored two of them and tried to put the onus on me for the other one.

I said you'd backpedal. And that's just what you did.

Then you waited a whole 30 minutes before whining about my lack of response. A whole 30 minutes. Wow.

This is all classic K-man. You talk big at the start. Then fail to back up your big talk.

SSDD.
Sketch

Trad climber
Not FortMental
Sep 4, 2014 - 04:03pm PT
Question to you guys: what scientist, famous to posters here, can we attribute the following statement to-" The anthropogenic signal is rather weak compared to the range of natural variability".

I don't know.

Do you know who said:

 Everyone agrees that we cant predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy.

 It could be large

 It could be small.

 We dont know.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Sep 4, 2014 - 05:04pm PT
Someone asked,why don't you link up?Because,frankly,

Those are for people that give a sh#t and know how to operate a computer.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 4, 2014 - 05:18pm PT
Assessing the risk of persistent drought using climate model simulations and paleoclimate data
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00282.1
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/04/3478274/global-warming-megadroughts/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/09/02/california-megadrought/14446195/
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 4, 2014 - 05:57pm PT
You insult my intelligence...


You mean when I stated that you "can't understand what Ed writes, even when Ed boils it down to the simplest of terms"?

Now that's telling.



You post a graph.

Ed takes it apart.

You call Ed names.

I ask if you can explain why your graph of trend lines has any relevance to our discussion.


Then you lose a nut.



Laughable.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 4, 2014 - 06:07pm PT
Stick to camp cookery and the rhythm of the simple life in your Thoreau woods, Wilbeer. The contents of Thinkprogress will only lead you to regress into imaginary division with your fellow countrymen. Mend your winter clothes and get ready for another wild ride. Jobs, hell their not for you.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Sep 4, 2014 - 07:12pm PT
Interestingly those Tesla battery plant jobs in Reno are quite dependent on the rebate for electric cars, such as done by California. The state rebate in Nevada: Zero.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 4, 2014 - 08:25pm PT
Nevada is a tiny market splater. I think Tesla has identified significant savings in construction and land costs, energy costs, taxation, labor costs, as well as a vastly quicker and streamlined permit process as the primary reasons for locating there. All important for cost basis and eventual market share without subsidies. It also doesn't hurt that Reno is in relatively close proximity to its main assembly plant and nearby port for export, is on a major east/west interstate, is a nexus for intercontinental rail transport, and the only lithium mine in the U.S. is in Nevada. I like the fact that Musk is helping to bring back manufacturing into the U.S. I think ill do my little part to support his efforts by buying one of his cars.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 4, 2014 - 09:57pm PT
So EDH, you are now going to insist that your work of late (the past couple of years) at Livermore, a contractor of the DOE btw, had absolutely NOTHING to do with nor was profoundly motivated by the recent specific EPA or any other gov't regs/initiatives regarding CC/AGW?

it has had nothing to do with climate change at all...
you can check my publication list if you want...

go to Google Scholar and search on "EP Hartouni"

no climate research there... ever.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 4, 2014 - 10:21pm PT
for Sketch

here is his linear trend plot on the data I downloaded from WoodForTrees.com, the data is the RSS "lower troposphere" temperature anomaly, you can see it matches Sketch's plot.

Credit: Ed Hartouni

Sketch was using the "canned" utilities at that site so he actually doesn't know the details, but I get the same trend line doing the analysis myself, and I also know what the trend is... it's posted in red to match the red line.

I've also plotted the average value of the data for this time period, that's in orange, and you have a hard time telling them apart.

Now we can "de-trend" the data, which is just subtracting the trend line from the data:

Credit: Ed Hartouni

if you average all the data points you get identically 0.000, which is what you expect. The standard deviation of the points around that is 0.167C, and this represents the spread of the data around the trend. In fact, you can plot a "histogram" (also called a "frequency" plot) of the data:

Credit: Ed Hartouni
in this plot the data is represented by the blue bars. What I've done is just counted the number of data points in the range of 0.025C about the values indicated on the x-axis (horizontal axis) of the plot.

The red bars are a plot of a Gaussian (Normal) distribution that has a mean of 0.00, a sigma of 0.167 and a total area equal to the number of data points. The red bars pretty much follow the blue bars.

Why plot this? Obviously the data Sketch plotted is not a line, it wiggles up and down in some manner. We could call it "natural variability" and say we expect a change from one year to the next. We could also assume that one year isn't connected to another year... so our histogram serves as an indication of the year-to-year variability.

Now why is this important? because if we rearrange the plot with a random variability of 0.167C as indicated by the data we won't necessarily get the same trend line.

We can calculate exactly how much of an affect this has on the values of the trend line, when calculate the trend line we obtain a covariance matrix which contains the information regarding just how much you expect the lines to change given the data points have some variance.

When you do that you find that the linear slope term (the term multiplying the time in years) has an uncertainty of 0.08056C/yr

when I plot those linear trend lines, consistent with the variance of the data you get the following plot:

Credit: Ed Hartouni

where the dashed lines are the trend lines you'd get for rearranging the data with the indicated variability.

As you can see, the data, and its variability, support a large increase of the temperature, as well as a very large decrease of the temperature.

So something is wrong in our interpretation. The model we used, a linear trend, does not give any insight into the trend of the data if we interpret the data as having a random variation.

That's not unexpected, the actual trend is something more complicated than a linear trend. The answer that a linear trend gives you, with the data variability, covers a very large range of values, probably all of the physically possible scenarios, but it can not discriminate between rising or falling temperature anomaly.

So the plot that Sketch keeps showing with the linear trend doesn't support his contention that the temps were unusually "flat" during that time.

Messages 27121 - 27140 of total 27884 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews