Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2014 - 01:24pm PT
|
The problem with the Chief is he thinks is cup is full when really it is almost empty.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2014 - 02:53pm PT
|
why don't you make the plot, and perform the linear regression, and tell us what the R˛ is...
since you are somehow using the site, show a bit of skepticism and do a check to see if the information is reliable.
if you are not able to do that, you should fess up, and admit you are not capable of being skeptical, and your doubt is based on your political beliefs and has nothing to do with science.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2014 - 03:28pm PT
|
hey Sketch, why don't you tell The Chief and the rest of us how to do a linear regression and calculate R˛
...climate science and its findings is all about understanding and doing these types of calculations, and even more complex analyses.. and while you both like to criticize, you don't do it with any ability or knowledge, no skills there...
and your lack of skills carries over to your inability to tell whether your preferred blogs and bloggers are correctly performing their analyses...
it's hard for you to imagine that scientists apply these skills to the work they do all the time, and are skeptical to a degree that surpasses your capability.
I've made an assertion about R˛ in the plot above... you don't have to believe me, be skeptical, do the calculation and show whether or not I'm correct.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2014 - 03:35pm PT
|
Chief wrote: It is obvious that you, Formulaonemental AND Brucee KY come from the same line of AZZHAT Stooooooooooooooooooooooooopidism.
Coming from someone who collects a check from the government every month.
You are a little dickhead.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2014 - 04:27pm PT
|
Chuff wrote: Now get your laziazz off this forum and get back to work in order to pay for them checks, AZZHAT!
Been paying for your types for years.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 14, 2014 - 04:36pm PT
|
Knowing how to duplicate the work isn't requirement for understanding the conclusions.
Whoa boy, I am a believer!
No Sketch, it's not a requirement that you know how to duplicate the work.
However, if you're going to denounce the work of thousands of climate scientists, then you should know more than how to read a [science-denying] blog.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2014 - 04:37pm PT
|
Chief wrote: And I have been paying for YOUR TYPES BOBDA for over four and half decades.
No you haven't you are just to dumb to make it anywhere else except the military. You joined dickhead...you need to be told how and what to do.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 14, 2014 - 04:52pm PT
|
The Chief, your plot is altered in some way, that trend line cannot have an R˛=0 as indicated.
The Chief, you are the one who posted it. Perhaps you can tell us how you arrived at the result.
That is, if you aren't just regurgitating somebody else's work.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2014 - 05:07pm PT
|
Chief wrote: Dumb? Let's see, you are the azzhat that is still working to pay my three monthly checks. Me, I'm here fuking off daily in a house that is bought and paid for, with three classic motorcycles, a full on weld shop, fully self reliant and doing what ever I want daily. NO one to answer to. Not a soul.
Self reliant on the government dime. OK, what ever you say.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2014 - 05:10pm PT
|
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― George Carlin
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2014 - 06:20pm PT
|
Hey you MODEL BOYS ie EDH. Check this new PEER REV'D study that shows another flaw in your MODELING PROCESS:
ah, I don't think it is a flaw in the modeling process, understanding the carbon cycle, which this paper provides information on, has been identified for years as an important element of the Earth System climate models.
The experiment is not so easy to do, but provides an important input, obviously.
How big an affect on the climate models do you think this is?
here's a link to the paper:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/10/1418075111
Impact of mesophyll diffusion on estimated global land CO2 fertilization
Ying Su, Lianhong Gu, Robert E. Dickinson, Richard J. Norby, Stephen G. Pallardy, and Forrest M. Hoffman
Understanding and accurately predicting how global terrestrial primary production responds to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations is a prerequisite for reliably assessing the long-term climate impact of anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions. Here we demonstrate that current carbon cycle models underestimate the long-term responsiveness of global terrestrial productivity to CO2 fertilization. This underestimation of CO2 fertilization is caused by an inherent model structural deficiency related to lack of explicit representation of CO2 diffusion inside leaves, which results in an overestimation of CO2 available at the carboxylation site. The magnitude of CO2 fertilization underestimation matches the long-term positive growth bias in the historical atmospheric CO2 predicted by Earth system models. Our study will lead to improved understanding and modeling of carbon–climate feedbacks.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2014 - 07:09pm PT
|
I'll read the paper, but I doubt I'll have much to comment on...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y
The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates
Nicholas Lewis, Judith A. Curry
Abstract
Energy budget estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) are derived using the comprehensive 1750–2011 time series and the uncertainty ranges for forcing components provided in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Working Group I Report, along with its estimates of heat accumulation in the climate system. The resulting estimates are less dependent on global climate models and allow more realistically for forcing uncertainties than similar estimates based on forcings diagnosed from simulations by such models. Base and final periods are selected that have well matched volcanic activity and influence from internal variability. Using 1859–1882 for the base period and 1995–2011 for the final period, thus avoiding major volcanic activity, median estimates are derived for ECS of 1.64 K and for TCR of 1.33 K. ECS 17–83 and 5–95 % uncertainty ranges are 1.25–2.45 and 1.05–4.05 K; the corresponding TCR ranges are 1.05–1.80 and 0.90–2.50 K. Results using alternative well-matched base and final periods provide similar best estimates but give wider uncertainty ranges, principally reflecting smaller changes in average forcing. Uncertainty in aerosol forcing is the dominant contribution to the ECS and TCR uncertainty ranges.
here's what the AR5 had for the TCR, perhaps you can tell me how it differs from the information in the abstract... (I doubt it)
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2014 - 08:04pm PT
|
What, you afraid that Judith will spank your amateur climate science ass if she gets wind of a third rate takedown Eddy. She only chaired a school of earth sciences and authored around 400 papers on climate science.
In light of new results of the real world experiment going on with the carbon cycle perhaps a GEOCARB 4,5 and 6 Is In order. Hell, Its high time to overhaul the whole stinking mess of GCM inputs and add many more, of course then the climate scientismists will be screaming for billions more to up the computing power.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2014 - 08:52pm PT
|
ah, not afraid of anybody, rick, I think you over rating this thread to fantasize that she'd even notice it...
...and I'm not an amateur, my friend, that's how I've made a very good living, being s scientist.
It's not like you're going to read the paper anytime soon (with any comprehension). I'll read the paper as published, but the abstract doesn't seem to be at odds with the work in AR5, and the conclusions seem to be very close. That being the case, it would seem to confirm the work with the models. Wouldn't that be ironic for you.
rick, I take it you indorse that paper! who would have thought you'd gone over so quickly... but stranger things have probably happened.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2014 - 12:34am PT
|
The correct spelling is endorse Ed.
Yes, you are a highly paid professional scientist, that's a fact not in dispute. However, by your own admission you have not done any paid climate research or authored any research papers on the subject. By definition you are an amateur in this field.
You've got a few things correct during your tenure here; its a fantasy to believe you are accomplishing any thing on this thread and the whole forum is of very little interest to anybody but a subset of the climbing community dominated by beyond prime, argumentative, male primates, Including yourself. Your opinion-" the anthropogenic signal is rather feeble compared to the range of natural variability" is proving more correct with each passing month and year without atmospheric warming exceeding the margin of error in the data collection and preperation process. A final thing you got right was your prior exit and self erasure once it became apparent to all, including yourself, that your ideological taint trumped your definition of scientific truth. Other than that you are a great teacher and learned us all a lot.
Like it or not the Lewis and Curry paper is just one of many reevaluating climate sensitivity in a downward trend. Science; it doesn't care about ideologies, carreers, individuals, beliefs or wishes, but just verifiable truths. No?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 15, 2014 - 08:34am PT
|
k-man, disprove the plot.
I posted the RSS data. Go ahead, plot it.
Hell, I'm no scientist, I don't even know what the heck R˛ signifies.
While I could take the time to find the data and load it up into Excel, I'd need to spend a considerable amount time figuring out how to calculate anything meaningful with the data.
Instead, I leave that to the experts. And when Ed says, The Chief, your plot is altered in some way, that trend line cannot have an R˛=0 as indicated, I believe him. Why? Because it's obvious that Ed knows what he's talking about. (You, on the other hand...)
In my daily life, I leave lots of things to experts. And one BIG thing I leave to experts is scientific discovery. And when thousands of international climate scientists publish papers on the state of affairs with the Earth's climate, I listen to what they've concluded. (And apparently, so do the folks in the Pentagon, at insurance agencies, in planning departments, and so on.)
But The Chief, because you are so full of yourself, please show us the R˛ trend line that you've calculated. After all, you couldn't berate me for not being able to do it if you couldn't do it yourself, because then you'd be a hypocrite.
Dollars to doughnuts you're full of it and can't plot R˛.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2014 - 09:08am PT
|
A final thing you got right was your prior exit and self erasure once it became apparent to all, including yourself, that your ideological taint trumped your definition of scientific truth.
no, I erased because the of the change in tone, and the irrelevance of past posts... as they got buried in the invective posting that the majority of the thread has become. and finally, it was clear that they really didn't matter.
"ideological taint" is an interesting accusation which is easy for you make... given your ideology. And science is not your strong suit in any manner, including the discussion of "truth."
Your main play on this thread is entirely ideological, with little or no science to back it up, as has been demonstrated time and again. And your major source of information misinforms you on the significance of various publications. For instance, you can't read the abstract from the paper of Curry and look at the AR5 graph and compare them.
As for the quote regarding the smallness of the climate change signal, unlike the natural variability, the climate change signal builds up year after year, and after 100 years dominates over the variability as the climate has changed. The natural variability averages out over time, as I've pointed out in many posts, and what's left is the climate change signal, as expected given the GHG increases.
You seemed to have left that part out of your quote of my statement.
Back to the paper, apparently you are now a fan of the peer review process, and a support of the scientific literature... for the moment at least.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!