Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 04:00pm PT
|
What's your point?
This thread has never been so good as today. Comedy post after comedy post.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 04:20pm PT
|
If you want to play that game I have asked you many questions that you haven't answered.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 04:27pm PT
|
By asking for a chart, you assume I don't know about trend lines?
Pretty much! Anyone who looks at that graph and doesn't realize leaving 2012 out of the analysis will have little effect doesn't understand jack sh#t about trends.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 04:29pm PT
|
By asking for a chart, you assume I don't know about trend lines?
You seem innumerate too but unlike Chief might be able to look stuff up. So tell us about trend lines. When Ed mentioned robust regression and I answered comparing OLS to Huber/biweight results (tuned to 95% Gaussian efficiency), what did we mean?
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 04:30pm PT
|
It means he would rather have a picture.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 04:32pm PT
|
It means he would rather have a picture.
Hah, I got that, and it would take me about a minute to draw and post one, but I'd still be arguing with cows.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 04:35pm PT
|
Loving it. Month doesn't matter much either.
I can see The Chief and Sketch bragging to their denier colleagues about how they demanded a simple graph and the alarmists wouldn't provide it. What have they got to hide!
Given their ignorance level, why would they trust any graph Chiloe provided?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 04:36pm PT
|
You know, Ray. You could just admit you made it up.
Or are you gonna stick with that "I already explained it" BS?
Please, read my posts instead of being an idiot and please answer my points and questions if you want an answer.
I am tired of discussing a single paper with you when it took you something like 20 posts before you even read the paper and because you have completely misrepresented the paper in several posts.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 04:40pm PT
|
Am I the only one that believes that the graph that the chief and Sketch want to see is a "trend" line that connects the start and end points of the data?
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 04:41pm PT
|
no, that's what they want. as useless of a graph as that might be apparently there is value to for them.
n=2
idiots
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 04:42pm PT
|
I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they think, Raymond.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 05:22pm PT
|
OK, Chief again proves he lacks ability to read or think, Sketch again tries to fake knowledge by answering questions with questions, Anderson can say nothing smarter than "ROFLMAO" and Sumner is nowhere to be seen.
But since there also are some numerate or just science-aware folks here, coincidentally every single one of them on the other side of these arguments, I'll post two alternative graphs as requested.
Here are the OLS and robust trend lines for global sea ice anomaly 1/1/1979 to 1/1/2013:
Chief's "Jan 1 2012" was just him getting confused and then pretending that he meant it, but it's easy to draw that one too:
They show what I said they'd show many posts above, a slightly steeper decline. Hat tip to monolith for understanding why that would happen, without even seeing these graphs.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 05:39pm PT
|
Nice dodge, coward.
Sketch slides back to name-calling, no surprise.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 05:42pm PT
|
It was obvious Sketch, if you had only studied the graph. Most of 2013 was above the trend line.
The fact that you needed it 'settled' shows you have inherited the same chart reading skills The Chief has.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 05:42pm PT
|
You're reference point zero in your little cartoon graph is meaningless as a measure of "global warming" Larry. Let's look at the entirety of this epoch, The Holocene, that the totality of civilization exists in, to derive an average. Then scale the graph up to say the millennial level to reflect oceanic turnover scale to get any meaningful idea of climate change. If you did this you would see the global ice anomaly on an incline since about 2000 b.c. and your little satellite era record an insignificant downward blip even compared to RWP or MWP. You guys and the graphical trickery are plain disgusting.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 05:57pm PT
|
Sure, Sumner. Insignificant blip compared to RWP and MWP. Please go on.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 06:03pm PT
|
Lots of sciency words in that post, Rick. It's a declaration you make loudly without saying how you know. Here's something I posted on a previous occasion to place satellite-era Arctic ice observations in the context of recent longer-term studies:
Although daily satellite observations go back only to the 1970s, declassified Cold War submarine observations show that Arctic ice has been declining since the 1950s, so the remaining cover increasingly consists of thinner seasonal ice (Kwok and Rothrock 2009). Historical records indicate that the seasonal ice zone, an area of northern seas that is ice-covered in winter but not in late summer, has been expanding gradually since 1870, and more rapidly in the past three decades (Kinnard et al. 2008). Proxy evidence suggests that the recent declines in Arctic sea ice extent and volume are unprecedented over the past 1,450 years (Kinnard et al. 2011) if not more (Polyak et al. 2010), as is the intrusion of warmer Atlantic waters into the Arctic Ocean (Spielhagen et al. 2011). In the past few decades, shelves of glacial ice more than 3,000 years old have broken apart due to warming in the Canadian Arctic (England et al. 2008). Thus, a broad range of indicators at decadal to millennial time scales confirm the exceptional nature of ice reductions that have recently been observed in the Arctic.
So, Kinnard (2011), Polyak (2010), Spielhagen (2011) and England (2008), each using different methods and data, don't agree with you. Nor do most others I've seen, so I'm curious -- who told you those sciency words? What's your source?
You guys and the graphical trickery are plain disgusting.
Your turn now, draw us your own graph. One with no disgusting trickery.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 06:27pm PT
|
You've accused us of name calling before, Sketch, while ignoring The Chief.
That is hypocrisy.
Most of us do it, on both sides.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 06:32pm PT
|
Anything's possible Sketch but you should go with the odds. Antarctic sea ice loss is about 16m km2, while Arctic gain is about 9m km2.
Go with the odds and you'll win in the long run.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 06:34pm PT
|
Oh, boy, here we go again. Unbelievable.
Sketch, why don't you help out The Chief?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|