This thread is a continuation from Global Warming Volume 3.

Keep discussing, but don't forget to respect others who don't share your opinion.

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

@tomazkid

You me to it !

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@BrianK

Quote:

There's a logic problem here. The author creates a theortical then makes claims based on reality from it. However, he fails to prove what or even if his theoretical coorelates to actuality.

Funny that you have no problem to believe in model-based pseudo-science which all suffer about what you complain here. Anyway the maths used are simple and conservative [stable climate] (but not perfect though) and the number of variables very low to be understandable by Joe. As such the approximation is sufficient to the point he made. Feel free to do a more precise calculation.

Quote:

when in fact the climate is not random. There are influencing factors and their contribution to the climate.

Existence of 'influencing factors' do not imply lack of random in climate. This is the actual problem in fact: the number of 'influencing factors' is so huge (and in most part unknown with unknown respective contribution) that the final result (the climate) is random at core. Otherwise go reclaim the $1M prize by the Clay Mathematics Institute because what you wrote is essentially the resolution of the NSE.

Quote:

This doesn't prove or disprove climate change nor it's causes.

There is no need to prove or disprove climate change as it is a tautological and empirical evidence (a real world observation) that *climate* *changes*. Of course causative attribution is still researched and debated, as any matter in Science.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

As such the approximation is sufficient to the point he made. Feel free to do a more precise calculation.

Sorry but the author did nothing to prove his guesses reflected reality. Why should I do the work for him? It's his point. He failed to make it. Or at best made it poorly.

Quote:

final result (the climate) is random at core.

Here is one dictionary definiton of random.
(1) proceeding, made, or occurring without definite pattern -- This is clearly not true there is a pattern. For example: July in MN is hot and we have no snow. Dec in MN is cold. This pattern has occurred as far back as Native records. Why does this happen well the angle of the earth to the sun causes different amounts of sunlight. This isn't random. It's a very predictable pattern. This definition clearly does not fit.

Here's another definition.
(2)Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen. -- The earth doesn't, for example, ignore sun for the week. Or pick the sun's warmth and ignore the planetary effects. This definition clearly doesn't fit either.

Can you help explain what you mean by random. It seems that these dictionary definitions do not apply.

Quote:

There is no need to prove or disprove climate change

Great then we agree the sentence or statement is superfluous. It makes no point in the debate. Though it really tries hard and wants to claim such.

Last edited by BrianK on 06-Jun-2009 at 12:31 AM.

I must apologize for my outburst in the other thread. I am interested in the subject and believe that human activities causes the most of the problem. One thing that bothers me is that many who write about the sun as a possible culprit doesn´t mention that we have have had an extreme and totally unexpected solar minimum for the last five years or so. Scientists are baffled and can´t explain it, it goes against all theories.

This solar minimum causes lower temperatures on Earth than normal.

edit: typo

Last edited by Niolator on 06-Jun-2009 at 08:28 AM.

@thread, well threads...

Why is this on the front page of what is primary an Amiga Website?

_________________
Rage quited 29th May 2011

@BrianK

Quote:

Sorry but the author did nothing to prove his guesses reflected reality

As with everything in Science, the author's probability calculation is thought correct until proven utterly wrong. For example, he did not account for autocorrelation between neighbouring weather stations (there is no metric for that in real world). He also choose a strong conservative (no stable climate in reality). So certainly his probability is only approaching reality (as with all models). But if *you* think his calculation is not reasonable enough, *you* have to demonstrate it to refute the author's model. Laziness or incompetence is not an option: remember this is how Science works.

Quote:

Can you help explain what you mean by random. It seems that these dictionary definitions do not apply.

I already explained it in a previous thread. Use the search function to help balance memory problems.

Quote:

Great then we agree the sentence or statement is superfluous. It makes no point in the debate. Though it really tries hard and wants to claim such.

Well, apart from denying the physical reality, you have no other choice than agreeing. And your conclusion is in fact the very author's point that temperature records (cold or warm) do not prove or disprove anything and do not add anything useful to the debate

This thus further emphasizes that temperature is not a proper metric to assess climate (heat content is).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Niolator

Quote:

Niolator wrote: I must apologize for my outburst in the other thread. I am interested in the subject and believe that human activities causes the most of the problem. One thing that bothers me is that many who write about the sun as a possible culprit doesn´t mention that we have have had an extreme and totally unexpected solar minimum for the last five years or so. Scientists are baffled and can´t explain it, it goes against all theories. This solar minimum causes lower temperatures on Earth than normal. edit: typo

Not everyone is as baffled as Nasa. There are people who predicted this minimum years ago and it seems to be right on time if you look at the past history of sun activity. There will be years lag before temperatures really start to drop if this minimum really affects the temperatures.
Same thing could be said for the grand maximum we have been experiencing until recently. This is why i dont believe co2 is responsible for most warming that have been seen.

Last edited by Tomas on 06-Jun-2009 at 11:56 AM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

As with everything in Science, the author's probability calculation is thought correct until proven utterly wrong.

Science creates a hypothesis based upon observations. It's through testing that hypothesis that the hypothesis is accepted, or not, as correct. In this case the author didn't even base his hypothesis on observations. Saying it's a hypthesis is even giving it too much credit.

How does the author start? "Consider a hypothetical country" What is a hypothetical? Breaking out the dictionary again we see it is defined as highly conjectural; not well supported by available evidence. It's from SWAG not suppored by evidence of any kind that the author jumps into conclusions of reality. Again very bad logic and doesn't work.

Quote:

And your conclusion is in fact the very author's point that temperature records (cold or warm) do not prove or disprove anything and do not add anything useful to the debate

Within this sentence you have misdefined the author's point. His point wasn't temperature records. His point was limited to a instance within all temperature records -- "No continents have set a record high temperature since 1974." This is an attemp to compare a single event at a single point in time to a duplicate event at a single point in time. It does not mean that all temperature records and other types of analysis cannot prove anything.

HUMOR: Now you have to accept my last statement as correct until you prove every case of every analysis of temperature ever as false. May I suggest you disprove Lindzen first. Then go onto Spencer and Christy. Go...

@Tomas

There are always those predicting strange stuff but they are often called weirdos until it actually happens, which is quite rare. Some even say that this rise is a precursor to a coming ice age, what if they are right?

There is just too much believing going on in this question and what the person believing would gain most on being the true reason to the temperature rise guides his belief in the question. Most public debates in the question are often on the same level as those debating life on other planets.

Both those subjects deserve a better fate according to me.

@BrianK

Quote:

Again very bad logic and doesn't work.

Your rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. Following it, you have to reject models and any tentative to model anything (particularly in the climate field) as they are all build this way. Anyway his observation is that some are repeatedly claiming "high record!" to prove whatever they want regarding climate whilst a little thought and probabilistic experiment shows how pointless it is.

Quote:

Within this sentence...

Instead of twisting what the author wants to show in a desperate tentative to save your point, what about rereading the title's article and not cherry picking a convenient phrase out of its context: "Are Record Temperatures Abnormal?" and his response:Quote:

So no, record high temperatures are not unusual and should be expected to occur somewhere nearly every day of the year. They don’t prove global warming – rather they prove that the temperature record is inadequate.

So, you do not have understood the point is not if temperature analysis is false or what, but that temperature records are not unusual and not at all useful to prove or disprove anything in climate: in clear are not a metric of anything remotely interesting.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Your rhetoric is just that, rhetoric.

Rhetoric is important. Rhetoric is the study of the effective use of language. I'd argue before anyone posts they've used rhetoric to help determine the validity of the article they are linking to. All posters figure out if the author does a good or bad job supporting the point in their arguement.

For your 'cherry picking' accusation. I suppose you can feel that I should call out every single problem at 1 time. I didn't nor did I want to. I encourage readers to always read for themselves. At times I choose to leave some of the problems on the table and readers with a critical eye can find joy in finding errors themselves.

Here's one example you brought out in your post but didn't see. "Anyway his observation is that some are repeatedly claiming "high record!" to prove whatever they want " Great observation. The author calls this out ...and then.... He goes ahead and repeats the error in his own statement. He makes a conclusion about continential temps. Says the high was in 1974. He provides 0 evidence that science concluded that was a factor. If one wants to demonstrate problems in arguement in opposition it's best not to repeat that problem yourself.

So are ""Are Record Temperatures Abnormal?" The author writes "So no, record high temperatures are not unusual and should be expected to occur somewhere nearly every day of the year" -- This is true of his imaginary Atlantis but failed to prove this is true for any real contient. He goes on to say "They don’t prove global warming – rather they prove that the temperature record is inadequate." But, he fails to demonstrate this too.

Quote:

So, you do not have understood the point is not if temperature analysis is false or what, but that temperature records are not unusual and not at all useful to prove or disprove anything in climate

Again he provided us temp records in Atlantis but failed to prove these are a reality anywhere on earth. If anything is not remotely interesting it's the failed proof of the author. Though the article is a good exercise in how not to make an arguement. As you say rhetoric -- the only value in the article is as an exercise in rhetoric.

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Jun-2009 at 04:12 PM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

For example, he did not account for autocorrelation between neighbouring weather stations

Congratulations, you have actually, all by yourself, have hit on the major issue with that Gedankenexperiment.

Of course, you would have looked a bit cleverer yet if you hadn't used the wrong impressive-sounding term (autocorrelation, as the name suggests, is not involving two separate sequences of measurements --- simple correlation does), but hey, at least you realised why the whole argument is humbug.

Quote:

(there is no metric for that in real world).

You are really unaware of correlation measures?

(BTW, another minor issue with the presented Gedankenexperiment and the significance it attempts to bestow upon the whole "no continent has recorded an annual max since 1974" is that apparently Australia is not a continent.... and neither is Europe...)

Last edited by umisef on 07-Jun-2009 at 04:58 PM.
Last edited by umisef on 07-Jun-2009 at 04:45 PM.
Last edited by umisef on 07-Jun-2009 at 04:38 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Rhetoric is important...

Rhetoric without a goal or missing the point has no value per se.

Quote:

If one wants to demonstrate problems in arguement in opposition it's best not to repeat that problem yourself.

Well it was the whole point of his exercise: I suggest that, as you don't get the theoretic aspect of the problem, you put it aside and only focus on the easy-to-understand conclusion based on real world observational data: Quote:

No continents have set a record high temperature since 1974. This is not even remotely consistent with claims that current temperatures are unusually high. Quite the contrary.

See? No need of irrelevant rhetoric for Joe to understand such information have intrinsically no causative, predictive or informational value except to wonder why exhibiting them in the first place: tax-$ racketed loving to be scared to only be further tax-racketed?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@umisef

Quote:

Of course, you would have looked a bit cleverer yet if you hadn't used the wrong impressive-sounding term (autocorrelation, as the name suggests, is not involving two separate sequences of measurements --- simple correlation does)

No congratulation! You would have appeared just normally intelligent if you had understood that 'autocorrelation' was what I meant in the first place: considering that temperature is potentially an autocorrelated function of time. But no: the word sounds awfully too impressive.

Quote:

(BTW, another minor issue with the presented Gedankenexperiment and the significance it attempts to bestow upon the whole "no continent has recorded an annual max since 1974" is that apparently Australia is not a continent.... and neither is Europe...)

Depends on the definition of continent: geographical, political, historical, conventional, etc. Even the number of continents is varying. Put the kangaroo where you feel it better fits. Europe is definitively a continent for European people.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Rhetoric without a goal...

True statement but no impact here. My rhetoric as you called it was to ensure the author was making valid arguements about reality. You suggest I don't get the theoretical aspect of the problem. My response to your suggestion is that you are wrong. I get the theoretrical aspect of the problem. The problem here is pretty simple. Reality is not a construct of a theoretical which is supported by a hypothetical. This is a huge problem one could drive the USS Enterprise through.

Quote:

only focus on the easy-to-understand conclusion based on real world observational data

"No continents have set a record high temperature since 1974. This is not even remotely consistent with claims that current temperatures are unusually high." What do we see here? We see a fact and a conclusion but no assertion. I think we can agree the author provided no link, or author, or article indicating that this fact should result in his conclusion. Without such what I see is a misrepresentation of his opponents position and the result of him refuting it. That is nothing less than a strawman.

Quote:

No need of irrelevant rhetoric for Joe to understand

Perhaps but Joe won't get that out of the failed Goddard article.

Last edited by BrianK on 07-Jun-2009 at 07:19 PM.

@BrianK

Well, again, dubious rhetoric to explain flawed rhetoric. I will leave it to you.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

'autocorrelation' was what I meant in the first place

Sure, sure. Which is why you wrote "he did not account for autocorrelation between neighbouring weather stations", right? Because you meant autocorrelation of a single weather station's measurement series

Sheesh, it would really be a good idea for you to say "damn it, I screwed up" occasionally.

Quote:

temperature is potentially an autocorrelated function of time

"Potentially"? You mean you are not convinced yet that there is a very strong autocorrelation at a delta-t of roughly 365.25 days (a tiny tad shorter, in fact)?

Quote:

Depends on the definition of continent: geographical, political, historical, conventional

If there is that much ambiguity, the statement in the article you quoted becomes meaningless, doesn't it?
Anyway --- Australia, being an island continent completely covered by a single country, would appear to be defined equally under all those choices. And it recorded new annual mean maxima in 1980 and 1998, and 2005

Thus, the whole premise of the (as BrianK points out, rather daring) argumentative leap seems to be utterly invalid.

Of course, an argument that starts out with talking about a hypothetical country with 1000 weather stations, makes some naive observations about statistically expected events across 1000 weather stations, and then, without batting an eyelid or even acknowledging the bait-n-switch, starts talking about continents (of which there are, by general reckoning, only 7) is pretty poor, if one is generous. If one were more critical, one might call it "constructed deceptively to bamboozle those easily impressed and blinded".

(BTW, you might want to go digging for an alternative definition of a "continent setting a new record high temperature". Except that you'd then have to explain away the city of Athens, *and* still would have to somehow justify an even more atrocious bait-n-switch....)

Last edited by umisef on 08-Jun-2009 at 02:14 AM.

@umisef

Instead of me always explaining what is this or what is that, why not taking a course in Maths? Hint: [spatial/temporal] autocorrelation – correlation of a variable (here the temperature: you miss this is the threads and post's subject) with itself [through space/time].

Quote:

"Potentially"? You mean you are not convinced yet that there is a very strong autocorrelation at a delta-t of roughly 365.25 days (a tiny tad shorter, in fact)?

You are? Feel free to demonstrate it analytically varying both time and space.

Quote:

If there is that much ambiguity, the statement in the article you quoted becomes meaningless, doesn't it?

Not less and not more that the 2 statements you give afterwards. Less in fact: I am not convinced by teleconnection.

Quote:

And it recorded new annual mean maxima in 1980 and 1998, and 2005

So what? No numbers to compare to, no demonstration that your supposed new records are not based on à-la-GISS 'adjusted' data or biased algorithms, and even so, no demonstration that the probability these supposed 3 new records occurred in the supposed time frame is very low, and even so, no demonstration that the previous demonstration has any relevant meaning, and even so, no demonstration of what is this meaning, and even so, no demonstration of the causative relationship between it and the initial root problem, etc.

Quote:

If one were more critical, one might call it "constructed deceptively to bamboozle those easily impressed and blinded".

So one will say, given the above, you were superficially critical (full of claims with no demonstration of anything except your usual misplaced sarcastic tone). 'Those' are not that naive to check it and also to appreciate your repetitive and degrading judgement on them. Thus based on your pretty poor performance, why not digging around yourself for new definitions, facts or justifications to positively increase your knowledge?

Edit: typos

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 08-Jun-2009 at 03:26 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

I just found this on the web:

The Earth Institute (Columbia University): CO2 Higher Today Than Last 2.1 Million Years

I have no idea how to access that brand-new study of todays date - as you previously mentioned that you have very good access to scientific papers - perhaps you could help here?

I'd be highly interested to read the study this article claims to be based on...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)