Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 13761 - 13780 of total 17219 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Sep 4, 2014 - 09:23am PT

"My career is ending". Perhaps so, but you have political ambitions. Unfortunately, your platform doesn't play well beyond the confines of the gay area. Mayor of Supertopo?

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".

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 4, 2014 - 09:25am PT

Now you are going to insist that Hollywood and the world's movie industry is the gospel of truth.

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. It's my proof that the movie was a well-made film.

You, as usual, are attempting to divert the topic.

But enough of this, your foolish banter bores me.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Sep 4, 2014 - 09:25am PT

To even state that your career with the DOE of late had nothing to do with AGW/CC is as false as the KMAN's notion that Al Gore's movie was well made.

I'm not sure what the two have to do with one another... the movie and DOE, but the things I have worked on during my work as a contractor to the DOE had nothing to do with climate change.

Your assertion is incorrect. But I'm sure you'll go on blowing on that...

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?

rick, I envy you your rich fantasy life, it would be nice to live in a made up world, especially the one you have imagined...

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Sep 4, 2014 - 09:30am PT

Get out of that damn city Ed. If you do, you might just discover that you had been living amongst a man made nightmare all along. Can I interest you in a fractional ownership position overlooking a canary in a coal mine?

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 4, 2014 - 10:24am PT

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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:

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 0.167ºC, 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:

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 ±0.025ºC 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 ±0.167ºC 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 ±0.08056ºC/yr

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

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.

AndyMan

Sport climber

Sep 5, 2014 - 02:21am PT

Yawn. Scammers and true believers are getting desperate. Even the IPCC admits warming has stopped ... such a "travesty" they can't explain why their scam didn't work out. No warming and still not a shred of EVIDENCE of any kind to support their scam.

raymond phule

climber

Sep 5, 2014 - 04:54am PT

Ed, I am not up to date with linear trends and confidence intervals so I haven't done the calculations myself. I am not sure exactly what you have done but

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

seems like a to high number if you talk about confidence intervals for the linear trend. McKitrick in the paper I commented on some pages ago got a similar confidence interval (uncertainty) per decade and that make much more sense to me.

I really don't like that linear trends are used as often as they are because the variance in the data is to large to use linear trends even on time intervals of 10-15 years.