If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Permafrost in Arctic regions becoming neither permanent nor frost   (news.bbc.co.uk) divider line 996
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

21340 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Dec 2004 at 4:53 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



996 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-12-29 05:31:47 PM
Brockway: Did you say something?


why, yes. yes i did.

anything else you'd like clarified? i aim to please.
 
2004-12-29 05:33:10 PM
Global Warming? The why am I so farking cold?

/Curious
//got nothing
///and if so, then what is to be done, besides impotent frustration of course
 
2004-12-29 05:36:12 PM
And when asked to provide a falsifiable hypothesis, the craven mumpsimus slithers away.
 
2004-12-29 05:37:05 PM
crawdaddy: Therefore Reagan was most definitely wrong.

Go figure. He thought Alaska had more oil than Saudi Arabia, too...
 
2004-12-29 05:42:59 PM
Brockway

Couldn't you have just, you know, changed the scale to make the graph easier to read? Why did it have to start at 0? Wouldn't it have been easier to use celcius or farenheit?
 
2004-12-29 05:48:08 PM
how do you expect to get the developing nations like china and india to agree to join in a climate change treaty if you won't?
lead by example you freaks!
don't be so GODDAMN CHILDISH!
 
2004-12-29 05:48:42 PM
pontechango:

What is an acceptible time range for the sample used to compute the standard deviation?


You use all the "N" in the data as a whole, doof. To do otherwise would be to either make up data, or else arbitrarily discount other data.

And when asked to provide a falsifiable hypothesis, the craven mumpsimus slithers away.


Another timeless classic to live forever in the archives. Congratulations for jumping the gun, Boomer.
 
2004-12-29 05:51:17 PM
crawdaddy

Couldn't you have just, you know, changed the scale to make the graph easier to read?


Funny, that's exactly what instructions for submission to Science Magazine say.

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/contribinfo/prep/prep_revfigs.shtml

Science Style in Figures

Figure layout and scaling

In laying out information in a figure, the objective is to maximize the space given to presentation of the data. Avoid wasted white space and clutter.

...

Scales or axes should not extend beyond the range of the data plotted.
 
2004-12-29 05:54:19 PM
Brockway

You use all the "N" in the data as a whole, doof.


So, you're talking about including the Vostok core? And including data that includes climates, e.g. ice ages, in which contemporary civilization could not exist in its current form? How does prehistoric data give you a threshold of tolerable climate change?
 
2004-12-29 05:56:44 PM
heap

why, yes. yes i did.

anything else you'd like clarified? i aim to please.


Yeah. I would like a clarification as to why you said something like, "that however is hardly worth commenting on", yet you took the time and effort required to post on that very thing that you claimed was not worthy. So the clarification I would like is why you took the time and effort to post something that you had prior knowledge was hardly worth doing. Is it the case that you frequently do things even knowing that they are not worth doing? That does not seem very logical to me.
 
2004-12-29 06:00:10 PM
pontechango

So, you're talking about including the Vostok core?


No, I am not talking about relying on guesses. I am talking about actual temperature measurements, and it is perfectly obvious how many make up the "N", because I plotted ALL of them on my first graph above. I have said many times I am simply using the GISTEMP data - bash it if you like.
 
2004-12-29 06:12:14 PM
Doc_Rocknocker:

Simply ascribing it all to man made greenhouse gases is both logically fallacious and ridiculously premature. Remember, there is a human cost to eco-friendly actions, so there may be a massive case of pouring money down a rathole where what we do as a species matters not one whit to a global climatic cycle expressed in hundreds of thousands or millions of years.


so we should just do nothing?
what if you're wrong?
if the environmentalists are wrong, and you are right, we will all have spent a little more money, and we'll have some cleaner cities....in this case, i'd like to be wrong.

but if YOU are wrong, and we do NOTHING, and we ARE affecting the environment, then as a species we go down...under ice or under water and disease...

i think a little short term economic pain to clean up a little and, let's face it, invent some cleaner, more efficient technology, is well worth it, considering the alternatives.
 
2004-12-29 06:12:38 PM
Brockway:

No, I am not talking about relying on guesses. I am talking about actual temperature measurements, and it is perfectly obvious how many make up the "N", because I plotted ALL of them on my first graph above. I have said many times I am simply using the GISTEMP data - bash it if you like.

Nobody's bashing the data, they're bashing your asinine graph. Pointing out that it's GISTEMP data doesn't get around that they don't graph it like assholes.
 
2004-12-29 06:13:03 PM
Brockway: I would like a clarification as to why you said something like


ok. simple enough.

read the rest of the post.

compared to the repetition, your assclownosity only rates an honorable mention. hardly worth mentioning doesn't mean 'not worth mentioning'. quite the opposite, really.

anything else throw you for a loop that would benifit us all to have a spite filled back-and-forth on, or can we cut right to the group hug?
 
2004-12-29 06:14:21 PM
heap:

anything else throw you for a loop that would benifit us all to have a spite filled back-and-forth on, or can we cut right to the group hug?

Keep your hand outta my kilt this time, m'kay?
 
2004-12-29 06:19:45 PM
sloth

couldn't be helped. had to give the crocodile dundee 'izzat a sheila?' test a try at least once.
 
2004-12-29 06:21:30 PM
So. All Bush's Fault then. Agreed?
 
2004-12-29 06:23:18 PM
bojangles

nah. lets stick with the standards.

it's clinton's fault, but bush is too stupid to realize it exists.

replace 'it' with whatever issue is currently on the plate.
 
2004-12-29 06:24:17 PM
Brockway

No, I am not talking about relying on guesses. I am talking about actual temperature measurements,


Then it looks like you've been making some false assumptions about GISTEMP.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/

Anomalies and Absolute Temperatures

Our analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperatures. The temperature anomaly tells us how much warmer or colder than normal it is at a particular place and point in time, the 'normal temperature' being the mean over many (30) years (same place, same time of year). It seems obvious that to find the anomaly, you first have to know the current and normal absolute temperatures. This is correct for the temperature at one fixed spot (the location of one thermometer), but not true at all for regional mean temperatures.

Whereas the individual reading represents just this spot but can be very different from nearby readings, the anomaly computed from those readings is much less dependent on location, elevation, wind patterns etc; it turns out to be representative for a region that covers several square miles. Hence we can combine anomalies from various stations to find regional mean anomalies. Regional absolute temperatures however cannot be obtained from observations alone.
 
2004-12-29 06:26:11 PM
Sloth_DC:

There is no data below unit 280 on a 300 unit graph. Actually, all the data falls within 10 units of a 300 unit graph. You are not plotting data in that 97% of your graph which is outside your data range, you are increasing the noise to signal ratio. In other words, you are plotting anti-data, which is dishonest.


Say what? Those degrees above 260 just float on the ether of datalessness, do they?

And your signal-to-noise ratio comment is in clear error. I am not changing the signal-to-noise ratio at all, it is just a different plot of the SAME data.

My plot, as I have said on so many occasions now, is the DEFINITION of minimum bias plot. You can not like it, and you can cry about it, but that's the way it is.

By contrast, here is the MAXIMUM (almost) bias plot:



OMFG, look how hot 1998 is compared to 1997, look how tall that bar is compared to the short one!!!!! OMFG!, at this rate we will all be dead in only a couple of years.

Uhm, no. It is just a very biased plot.

You guys can cry that my plot isn't scary enough, or biased enough. It is the minimum bias plot. Cry about it.
 
2004-12-29 06:26:59 PM
In conclusion, Brockway is full of shiat. I rest my case.
 
2004-12-29 06:29:23 PM
Brockway

What do you do for a living? Do you actually sell this shiat to real people? You ought to be ashamed of yourself, you f*cking charlatan.
 
2004-12-29 06:33:05 PM
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/abs_temp.html

Q. What do I do if I need absolute SATs [Surface Air Temperatures], not anomalies?

A. In 99.9% of the cases you'll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures. In the remaining cases, you have to pick one of the available climatologies and add the anomalies (with respect to the proper base period) to it. For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14 Celsius, i.e. 57.2 F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58 F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.
 
2004-12-29 06:35:31 PM
In other words, the anomolies are much more accurate THAN ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURES which are based on a MODELED MEAN. Got you, Brockway.

MWAHAHAAHAAHAHA!!
 
2004-12-29 06:36:38 PM
pontechango

Then it looks like you've been making some false assumptions about GISTEMP.

Regional absolute temperatures however cannot be obtained from observations alone.

In conclusion, Brockway is full of shiat. I rest my case.


Then you rest your case on nothing. Who was talking about REGIONAL warming? That's right, nobody. I was talking about GLOBAL warming...you know, the whole planet. I have said many times, and you seem to not be able to understand it, that the data I used was the undisambiguated double-degree station data, normalized.

I was not giving ANY REGIONAL absolute values. You need to read GISTEMP more before you admit to the jury that your case should be tossed out for lack of evidence.
 
2004-12-29 06:37:17 PM
pontechango

i think we can pencil you in as the 17th person to have pointed this out.

additionally, no less than 47 people have arched an eyebrow at the choice of scale, and the start/stop points for data being tracked.

yet, somehow, the brick wall still sits there, no worse for wear...save the head shaped indentations pockmarking the surface

mumpsimus, indeed.
 
2004-12-29 06:39:50 PM
heap

I thought the formula was:
ALL (x) is Bush's fault.
ALL (x) was Clinton's fault before that.
ALL (y(subset X)) is the fault of Religion.
 
2004-12-29 06:40:05 PM
Brockway

I was not giving ANY REGIONAL absolute values. You need to read GISTEMP more before you admit to the jury that your case should be tossed out for lack of evidence.


Wrong. The global mean, on which you are resting all those anomolies which you despise so much, is MODELED. Relative temperature changes are much more precise. Get that through your thick, mumpsimus head.
 
2004-12-29 06:41:49 PM
heap

Yeah, I'm sure. But it was his choice of words about "not talking about relying on guesses. I am talking about actual temperature measurements" that really betrays hims. That mumspimus is busted.
 
2004-12-29 06:42:32 PM
bojangles

well, if we're going for the 'original sin' for blame's sake...it's all kevin bacon's fault.
 
2004-12-29 06:45:28 PM
pontechango:

In other words, the anomolies are much more accurate THAN ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURES which are based on a MODELED MEAN. Got you, Brockway.

MWAHAHAAHAAHAHA!!


You really are the consumate moron. My absolute temperatures are DERIVED FROM THE ANOMALY by premise. Congratulations, you have managed to prove what I had already stipulated was a GIVEN in my original derivations. Congratulations for coming over TO MY SIDE. Welcome to the team. I bet you feel really proud of yourself for demonstrating what I had already stipulated was an INITIAL REQUIREMENT for my calculation. Good grief.

The argument was never even about anomaly versus absolute temperature. The argument was that PLOTTING the anomaly is BIAS.

But really, congratulations for demonstrating the given.

Pythagoras: The square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the adjacent sides.

pontechango: So triangles have three sides, I've got you!!! MWaaaahaaahaaa.

Really...congratulations.
 
2004-12-29 06:45:43 PM
heap

The funny thing is that Brockway claimed on another thread to have taught courses in climatology. I don't know what that guy is up to but I'm sure it ain't anything good.
 
2004-12-29 06:45:43 PM
DAMN that Kevin Bacon and his sinful dancin' ways! It's the DEVIL'S music I tell ya!
 
2004-12-29 06:48:50 PM
pontechango:

The funny thing is that Brockway claimed on another thread to have taught courses in climatology.

yep, and mike_71 is a disco dancin' wedding dj that runs the Washington Tripe's ad department and has a wife that owns ikea.

and we alllllll shine on......
 
2004-12-29 06:48:52 PM
Brockway

My absolute temperatures are DERIVED FROM THE ANOMALY by premise.


Yes, they are, therefore, not as accurate as the original anomolies, which you claim to be misleadingly "scary".


The argument was never even about anomaly versus absolute temperature. The argument was that PLOTTING the anomaly is BIAS.

Apparently, you are too much of a cretin to acknowledge that plotting the anomolies is more precise than plotting absolute temperatures. I suggest that you go find a nice private spot and f*ck yourself.
 
2004-12-29 06:49:18 PM
pontechango

Wrong. The global mean, on which you are resting all those anomolies which you despise so much, is MODELED. Relative temperature changes are much more precise. Get that through your thick, mumpsimus head.


Another clear error. They are not "modeled". The data is normalized, as I have said all along.

You would do well to learn the difference between "modeling" and "data normalization". The data is normalized, and I have stated that explicitly on numerous instances, including this thread.

The data is NOT modeled. It is normalized.
 
2004-12-29 06:53:37 PM
pontechango:

My absolute temperatures are DERIVED FROM THE ANOMALY by premise.

Yes, they are, therefore, not as accurate as the original anomolies, which you claim to be misleadingly "scary".


Man...the relationship of "original anomaly" to the absolute temperature is LINEAR, and therefore the accuracy is EXACTLY the same.


Apparently, you are too much of a cretin to acknowledge that plotting the anomolies is more precise than plotting absolute temperatures. I suggest that you go find a nice private spot and f*ck yourself.


What a doof. The relationship of the absolute temperature to the anomaly is LINEAR. Therefore the PRECISION, as well as the ACCURACY is EXACTLY the same. Man.
 
2004-12-29 06:55:40 PM
Brockway

Another clear error. They are not "modeled". The data is normalized, as I have said all along.


And how are data points decided, mumpsimus?
 
2004-12-29 06:55:48 PM
pontechango and brockway remind me of conan o'brien's nerd impression
 
2004-12-29 06:57:05 PM
is Brockway now posting this latest graph he's knocked up on his toaster as some kind of justification for his nonsense? so thanks to lord knows how many posts, we now know why scientists plot somewhere in between these two ludicrous extremes. we owe the man a great debt of thanks, of that therre is no doubt. as i sit here laughing, between guffaws i can feel what must surely be the warm golden glow of enlightenment spreading slowly over me, starting from the waist it's spreading outwards, down my legs. ah. waht it is to have this knew heady potion of knowledge. eww. actually i may have just pissed myself. enlightenment will have to wait
 
2004-12-29 06:57:33 PM
Does anyone have that NASA data on the climate changing affects that Kevin Bacon's footloose dancing has had on the enviornment? I just know that it's plain as day with or without conversion to Kelvin that he must be stopped.
 
2004-12-29 06:59:28 PM
Brockway

Man...the relationship of "original anomaly" to the absolute temperature is LINEAR, and therefore the accuracy is EXACTLY the same.


True but the mean is not as accurate as the anomolies. Therefore, you are unnecessarily introducing less accurate information. Your chart is less valuable than the original anomolies. No respectable science journal would publish it.
 
2004-12-29 07:00:52 PM
ciretose

If all the coastal city's are gone, the Red States lead grows. It's all about taking care of your base.

You are overlooking one possibility: that there is something about living on the coast that makes one tend to vote blue. If this is so, then rising oceans would erode the red base, not the blue.

And what's that thing Brockway mentioned about the "square of the hippopotamus?"

Bar charts and pie charts
And mean distributions
Are no better than darts
Or random evolutions

The real data's plain, though,
And will become be clear
When you take it CUM GRANO
With a shot of beer.

/No attribution for that one.
 
2004-12-29 07:03:30 PM
21-7-b

is Brockway now posting this latest graph he's knocked up on his toaster as some kind of justification for his nonsense? so thanks to lord knows how many posts, we now know why scientists plot somewhere in between these two ludicrous extremes.


Yep. That's it. There are the extremes of minimum bias, and maximum bias. And my original graph is of minimum bias, as I have said all along. Generally climatologists choose something nearer maximum bias because it is maximally scary-looking. And if they can't scare us into thinking we are all going to bake in a couple of years, it is harder for them to get grant money. So there is no mystery why they plot anomaly instead of temperature, because it is scarier.
 
2004-12-29 07:04:33 PM
Brockway

You're the one scared of it.
 
2004-12-29 07:04:46 PM
Brockway

Generally climatologists choose something nearer maximum bias because it is maximally scary-looking.


No, they choose something that reflects the actual measurements because IT IS MORE PRECISE, you f*cking charlatan.
 
2004-12-29 07:06:52 PM
Brockway

Where is your proof that climatologists and NASA have formed a conspiracy to use charts presenting temperature anomolies instead of absolute surface temperatures? The burden of proof lies on you to prove this tinfoil hat bullshiat.
 
2004-12-29 07:08:51 PM
mmmmm.....kelvin bacon.
 
2004-12-29 07:09:41 PM
Brockway

Do you have a manual from the Climatology Socialist Association that indicates a style preference to use charts that maximize impressions of fear in the general public? If you don't have any such thing, you might want to stop making frivolous claims about psychological motivations.
 
2004-12-29 07:11:31 PM
I think Brockway is really the Time-Cube guy.
 
Displayed 50 of 996 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report