Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
juneclimber
Sport climber
june lake, ca
|
|
//Ed Hartouni
the papers are empirical//
Well this is where we have a philosophical difference of opinion-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical
: based on testing or experience
Full Definition of EMPIRICAL
1 originating in or based on observation or experience
2 relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
I have apparently a much more strict adherence to this classical definition, and use. It does not say, "whatever the experts justify." And rewriting the past based on present prejudice is certainly not empirical by any interpretation.
I would have less of a problem if universal adjustments did not rewrite individual records, and the end result did not contradict well documented historical information.
How could Hansen say in 1999 - http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
"Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath…..in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country"
Here is from Hansen 1999 linked previously -
"The U.S. temperature increased by about 0.8°C between the 1880s and the 1930s, but it then fell by about 0.7°C between 1930 and the 1970s and regained only about 0.3°C of this between the 1970s and the 1990s. The year 1998 was the warmest year of recent decades in the United States,
but in general, U.S. temperatures have not recovered even to the level that existed in the 1930s. This contrasts with global temperatures, which have climbed far above the levels of the first half of this century."
And then he proceeded to simply rewrite the data in the next two years to erase everything he himself just documented? You really find that acceptable?
Uhh, let me double check the Ptolemy thing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Russell_Newton
Guess one of my physics teachers impressed this upon me!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
how ya doing, chief?
you seem to be in a good mood tonight, in top form!
hope you are enjoying your well deserved retirement
manip full credit to Locker of course
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Yes Chief, may mother of god save us, for I fear you have yet to install the backup preventer.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
Shouldn't that be the backflow preventer to keep the sewage he spews from running back in?
|
|
juneclimber
Sport climber
june lake, ca
|
|
//Ed Hartouni
juneclimber, did you read any of those papers?//
Well I just went through Hansen 2001 again, but I have not looked at any of the ones you listed - recently, if at all.
I give them credit for some transparency. But if you saw my post above, my main objection is fundamental, second the method with which they are applied, and obviously the results. They are mutilating the empirical data.
Just look at Berkeley Earth...at least they show raw data on their data pages. Then they mutilate it with the same dubious methods, and the same dubious results as GISS and CRU. All you have to do is go through their quality control, which is not that hard to follow. Pick any specific station and see what they do to it in the end.
I really have a hard time supporting such blatant disregard for the actual measurements.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
L4et's just replace
"model"
The latest presumably more authoritative moniker.
with
"theory"
the time proven descriptor.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
no chief, I had not seen that video
cool, thanks!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Ed Hartouni -- "light is truth, therefore what we see through that instrument bends the truth..."
Very nice, yes,
very very nice .....
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
" Nor of all things, do I state that it is the saving grace of all humanity and that without it, we are all doomed."
Show us CHEF,where has Ed said that.
You cannot,because he has not.
All Ed has done here is defend the science,you and yours have just made it easy for him.
Again ,you and yours are the ONLY ones to say that.
Amazing.
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
|
|
science?
most major discoveries were accidental,
so science = accidents
where is the science in that?
physics? mostly the science of how to kill people,
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
You're fooling your self Ed, the science you are learning in this field is smoke and mirrors , illusion, in short modern Lysenkoism. You are here because you are obsessed with winning this false argument . The question you should be asking your self, the science you should pursue is that of the natural mechanisms , particularly effects of our slide into a deep solar mimumum, is to what degree these natural forcings will overwhelm the modest anthro contribution.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
You're fooling your self Ed, the science you are learning in this field is smoke and mirrors , illusion, in short modern Lysenkoism. You are here because you are obsessed with winning this false argument .
If I believed that you had at least some knowledge about science in general, climate science in particular, math and statistics your opinion like the one above could be slightly interesting.
When it obvious that you luck any relevant knowledge and base your opinion on your politics and some biased blogs I really don't understand why you need to state your opinion all the time. No one is listening to you.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
The old " you're not qualified to have an opinion gambit". Phule, you are a fool. What may I ask is your qualification to have an opinion, besides you're ideology.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Completely uninformed opinions on a technical matter are just very uninteresting. You are for example not going to listen when your dentist start a rant about you building houses in the wrong way.
My qualifications to have an opinion is for example that I know what a differential equation is and that I can perform a linear regression calculation. Many of your sides argument are at a such low level that it is enough to have a pretty basic understanding of statistics and dynamical systems to understand that the arguments are invalid.
My opinion is though that people like me with not enough knowledge about a subject should listen to the experts instead of trying to play an expert when they aren't one.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
I'm posting on my cell phone so everything has to be short. Ok Fool, now you reveal you're insecurity of ignorance and the old "trust the experts" argument. Well I am trusting the experts, they just happen to be counter to the CAGW theory. You on the other hand are following the prevailing opinion of the experts who recommend a consensus not unlike the the experts in the financial markets pre 2008.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Ok Fool, now you reveal you're insecurity of ignorance and the old "trust the experts" argument.
It must feel good to be so certain about things that you know nothing about.
Well I am trusting the experts, they just happen to be counter to the CAGW theory. You on the other hand are following the prevailing opinion of the experts who recommend a consensus not unlike the the experts in the financial markets pre 2008.
And you trust the experts not unlike and sometimes the same experts that said that smoking and second hand smoking is not a threat to people.
There is of course one difference between us. I am not a climate scientist and not an expert on the climate but I have the knowledge to read and understand scientific papers so I have at least some possibility to make my own opinion of who to trust and who not to trust. You on the other hand obviously can't even do that.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Guess who defends pro-smoking, Chief?
Heartland has devoted considerable attention to defending tobacco (and other industries) from what I view as being an unjust campaign of public demonization and legal harassment. We’re an important voice defending smokers and their freedom to use a still-legal product.
lol!
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Nothing I post will be considered viable to you Chief.
If you don't believe Heartland has defended smoking, you are in denial, as usual.
It's hilarious you don't think Heartland has supported the Tobacco industry!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!