Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(LA Times)   New Supercomputer will study climate change, compose Linkin Park songs   (latimes.com) divider line 123
    More: Cool, National Center for Atmospheric Research, atmospheric scientist, climate change, Wyoming, supercomputers, Central United States, carbon sequestration, Gulf of Alaska  
•       •       •

1142 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Jun 2012 at 11:22 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-10 09:33:25 PM  

SevenizGud: Farking Canuck: "Lies of omission" are still lies.

Then stop lying by pretending temperature started in 1880. You lying liar. Always with the lying lies you lie through your lying liar's liar teeth. Liar.



Besides being somewhat nonsensical, nobody is pretending that "temperature started in 1880". If you're going to throw a childish tantrum about other people being liars, don't start your post with one yourself.

That aside, I posted this in the other thread, but since you're running the same shtick in this one, I'll copy-and-past most of it:

It looks like you're not giving much credence to the idea that looking at just 15 years tends to capture more short-term variation and therefore is misleading in terms of determining longer-term trends:

i39.tinypic.com

Therefore, we can try a different tack. Let's look at the last five years then:

www.woodfortrees.org

According to your own (faulty) line of argument, this would mean that it is currently warming again over the last five years. You will have a very hard time arguing against this in a way that does does not also undermine your own assertion in regards to 15 years.
 
2012-06-10 09:51:10 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: According to your own (faulty) line of argument, this would mean that it is currently warming again over the last five years.


Wow, 2 ten-thousands of a degree over 5 years. How will the snail darters ever survive this calamity?
 
2012-06-10 09:54:50 PM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: According to your own (faulty) line of argument, this would mean that it is currently warming again over the last five years.

Wow, 2 ten-thousands of a degree over 5 years. How will the snail darters ever survive this calamity?



It is a small amount of warming over that period, but still warming nevertheless. Again, according to your own flawed line of argument, this would mean that it is currently warming again, You're not contesting this? ;)
 
2012-06-10 09:55:02 PM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: According to your own (faulty) line of argument, this would mean that it is currently warming again over the last five years.

Wow, 2 ten-thousands of a degree over 5 years. How will the snail darters ever survive this calamity?


Fail troll is fail.
 
2012-06-10 10:04:21 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: It is a small amount of warming over that period, but still warming nevertheless. Again, according to your own flawed line of argument, this would mean that it is currently warming again, You're not contesting this?


Wow, it's almost like whether it is warming or cooling depends on your start date.

I'll drag you along, even with your kicking and screaming.
 
2012-06-10 10:13:32 PM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: It is a small amount of warming over that period, but still warming nevertheless. Again, according to your own flawed line of argument, this would mean that it is currently warming again, You're not contesting this?

Wow, it's almost like whether it is warming or cooling depends on your start date.

I'll drag you along, even with your kicking and screaming.



Okay, we're getting somewhere, and we can agree on this.

The next step is to realize that not all start dates and periods are equally useful given the phenomenon of interest. What you posted in terms of a 15-year period would be great if we were primarily interested in phenomena that occur over that scale of time - ENSO, for example. For something like climate change, much less useful, and again, potentially quite misleading. Again, something that you should be demonstrated to you by this graphic:

i39.tinypic.com

If you don't understand, we can try to tackle this in another way.
 
2012-06-11 02:34:47 AM  
Temperatures rise and fall. Ice caps come and go. Sea level rises and falls. Climate stability is not an option. Get used to it.
 
2012-06-11 06:03:29 AM  

SevenizGud: Wow, 2 ten-thousands of a degree over 5 years. How will the snail darters ever survive this calamity?


Closer to 4 thousands of a degree in 5 years, which is the same order of magnitude per-year change as the "cooling" your cherry-picked data for 15 years shows.

Which reminds me, you have yet to justify why your particular choice of start date should be considered a valid basis for extrapolating a long-term trend from. I know it's been asked before but I've only ever see you evade the question. What is the significance of your time window?


Lastly: "Hide the decline"

There are a number of misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline':

1. The "decline" does not refer to a "decline in global temperature" as often claimed. It actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations. This decline began in the 1960s when tree-ring proxies diverged from the temperature record.

2. "Mike's Nature trick" has nothing to do with "hide the decline". "Mike's trick" refers to a technique by Michael Mann to plot instrumental temperature data on the same graph as reconstructed data over the past millennium.

3. The divergence of tree-ring proxies from temperatures after 1960 is openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature and the last two IPCC assessment reports.


=Smidge=
 
2012-06-11 06:32:10 AM  
Welfare Xmas:
So now they are going to do really inaccurate Navier-Stokes calculations much much much much faster? Sounds like the difference between runny stool and explosive diarrhea to me.

*SNERK*
 
2012-06-11 06:36:32 AM  
LouDobbsAwaaaay:
This phrase, however:

TFA: The sheer speed of Yellowstone is designed to burst through the limits of chaos theory

Displays how the media is completely unable to accurately report on science stories. Yeesh.

Thank you for identifying one of the GLARING idiocies of TFA. If I don't see the other downthread, I'll point it out...
 
2012-06-11 06:47:06 AM  
Farking Canuck:
Look at whatshisname's graph ... you know, the real one that shows all the data (as opposed to the cherry-picked one posted by liars). See in the 1940's ... a significant down trend. It was much more significant than the short flat spot you keep harping on about and yet the temperature still went up!!

Oh, FFS. You're biatching about cherry-picking, and present a cherry-picked graph? There's a REASON that warmer alarmists only use data starting somewhere in the 1850-1880 range. They are cherry-picking. That's the only range in which the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature is better than piss-poor.

They sure as hell don't want to start BEFORE then, like, say, 1800, because that is before the industrial revolution, and the warming trend was in full effect then. Get it? The current trend was in place BEFORE mankind started making merry with all the carbon dioxide. And the rate of increase hasn't changed much over that time, either. Awkward.
 
2012-06-11 06:54:33 AM  
Sheseala:
WelldeadLink: The positive feedback correlation as stated doesn't make sense. The positive feedback claim predicts higher temperatures, while at the same time referring to a lack of increased temperatures.

Actually, it says "This is triggering", as if the feedback has already been observed. If there is increased heat, where is it? Does heat involve thermodynamics, Lou?

Where the heat is going.

No, sorry, that doesn't make any sense in the real world. Air and water currents isolate areas from each other. The whole planet is not going to stop warming waiting for all the ice to melt.

Also, if you take a glance back, you will find the temperatures rising quickly in, say, the 1980s, while glaciers melt. So, melting glaciers do NOT stop warming.
 
2012-06-11 07:01:09 AM  
Farking Canuck:
SevenizGud:
All lies, according to dipshiat

Your lies are not the data you do report ... your lies are in the data you omit because it does not support your agenda.

"Lies of omission" are still lies.

So, what were temperatures doing from 1800 to 1880, liar?
 
2012-06-11 07:21:44 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
The next step is to realize that not all start dates and periods are equally useful given the phenomenon of interest. What you posted in terms of a 15-year period would be great if we were primarily interested in phenomena that occur over that scale of time - ENSO, for example. For something like climate change, much less useful, and again, potentially quite misleading. Again, something that you should be demonstrated to you by this graphic:

You're being too short. Climate has cycles measured in hundreds of millions of years. I mean, we should at LEAST look at the whole interglacial period. Thus:

i49.tinypic.com


Yep, we're in an 8000 year cooling trend, and the last couple hundred years of warming is just a blip.

And, are you going to now say that the ONLY valid time frame is your cherry-picked one chosen to imply better correlation with carbon dioxide than exists?
 
2012-06-11 07:42:37 AM  
 
2012-06-11 07:59:21 AM  

Smidge204: Which reminds me, you have yet to justify why your particular choice of start date should be considered a valid basis for extrapolating a long-term trend from. I know it's been asked before but I've only ever see you evade the question. What is the significance of your time window?


It's the last 15 years.
 
2012-06-11 08:04:39 AM  

Smidge204:
1. The "decline" does not refer to a "decline in global temperature" as often claimed.


I was addressing the "lies of omission" concept from upthread.

I guess in this case, though, it is more of 'lies of deletion' than lies of omission.

But hey, a hockey-teamer did it, so it's okay, right?
 
2012-06-11 09:18:49 AM  
Speaking of lies ... the green thread-shiatter is here.

Yay!!
 
2012-06-11 09:45:00 AM  

SevenizGud: It's the last 15 years.


You're avoiding the question again. That is the significance of 15 years? What is your justification for excluding data older than 15 years?


SevenizGud: I was addressing the "lies of omission" concept from upthread.

I guess in this case, though, it is more of 'lies of deletion' than lies of omission.



So rather than make an attempt to understand what is going on, or admit that you are deliberately misrepresenting the situation, you're going to continue to assert what is false. Gotcha.
=Smidge=
 
2012-06-11 10:32:47 AM  

Smidge204: SevenizGud: It's the last 15 years.

You're avoiding the question again. That is the significance of 15 years? What is your justification for excluding data older than 15 years?


SevenizGud: I was addressing the "lies of omission" concept from upthread.

I guess in this case, though, it is more of 'lies of deletion' than lies of omission.


So rather than make an attempt to understand what is going on, or admit that you are deliberately misrepresenting the situation, you're going to continue to assert what is false. Gotcha.
=Smidge=


What is there to understand? Briffa deleted data to hide the fact that his proxy wasn't proxying. And somehow that's you "gotcha" me, eh? Nice logic.

You pretend that I don't know what's going on? Gotcha. You pretend that I am misrepresenting the situation, when I point out that Briffa deleting data is nothing to the warmers, and not a lie of omission? Gotcha!! I am asserting what's false when I assert that deleting data is deleting data? Gotcha!!!!!!eleventy!!

Take your imagined victories and ram them up your snout.
 
2012-06-11 10:42:02 AM  
For the idiots who still don't get it:

The Briffa Method:

img9.imageshack.us

No lies of omission there, nosireebob.
 
2012-06-11 10:56:00 AM  
Remember kids, the proxy data proxies, except when it doesn't. And when it doesn't, you just delete the data and substitute it with other data that you like better. There's nothing dishonest about that, is there?

If you think that deleting data you don't like is academically dishonest, just remember this one piece of advice:

1. Drink more kool-Aid.
 
2012-06-11 12:39:47 PM  

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: Look at whatshisname's graph ... you know, the real one that shows all the data (as opposed to the cherry-picked one posted by liars). See in the 1940's ... a significant down trend. It was much more significant than the short flat spot you keep harping on about and yet the temperature still went up!!
Oh, FFS. You're biatching about cherry-picking, and present a cherry-picked graph? There's a REASON that warmer alarmists only use data starting somewhere in the 1850-1880 range. They are cherry-picking. That's the only range in which the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature is better than piss-poor.

They sure as hell don't want to start BEFORE then, like, say, 1800, because that is before the industrial revolution, and the warming trend was in full effect then. Get it? The current trend was in place BEFORE mankind started making merry with all the carbon dioxide. And the rate of increase hasn't changed much over that time, either. Awkward.



The above is based on false information. You know the bit in bold is completely false, and the reason why you see many graphs starting in the "1850-1880 range" is that this is when the 'global' instrumental record begins. No need to construct some sort of conspiracy.
 
2012-06-11 12:51:48 PM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: The next step is to realize that not all start dates and periods are equally useful given the phenomenon of interest. What you posted in terms of a 15-year period would be great if we were primarily interested in phenomena that occur over that scale of time - ENSO, for example. For something like climate change, much less useful, and again, potentially quite misleading. Again, something that you should be demonstrated to you by this graphic:
You're being too short. Climate has cycles measured in hundreds of millions of years. I mean, we should at LEAST look at the whole interglacial period. Thus:

[i49.tinypic.com image 640x434]

Yep, we're in an 8000 year cooling trend, and the last couple hundred years of warming is just a blip.

And, are you going to now say that the ONLY valid time frame is your cherry-picked one chosen to imply better correlation with carbon dioxide than exists?



Actually, what you've said here isn't that bad. The potential problem is that while other scales can be informative (like the very long one you've highlighted), unsurprisingly, they aren't as useful as one that looks at the scale over which the phenomenon of interest actually occurs.

Let's use your graph as an example. The graph you've presented would be very informative and appropriate if we're primarily interested in ice ages. Looking at a scale of millions of years, the trends apparent in the graph you've presented would also be merely a 'blip', and would such a scale would be much less useful, again, since we're primarily interested in ice ages. Again, these other scales can be informative, but not even remotely close to as informative as one that is similar to the the scale over which the phenomenon of interest actually occurs

It becomes much more of a problem if you attempt to make inferences solely based on scales other than which the phenomenon occurs, which is something you and the person I'm responding to have a tendency to do.
 
2012-06-11 12:59:47 PM  

SevenizGud: Smidge204: SevenizGud: It's the last 15 years.

You're avoiding the question again. That is the significance of 15 years? What is your justification for excluding data older than 15 years?


SevenizGud: I was addressing the "lies of omission" concept from upthread.

I guess in this case, though, it is more of 'lies of deletion' than lies of omission.


So rather than make an attempt to understand what is going on, or admit that you are deliberately misrepresenting the situation, you're going to continue to assert what is false. Gotcha.
=Smidge=

What is there to understand? Briffa deleted data to hide the fact that his proxy wasn't proxying. And somehow that's you "gotcha" me, eh? Nice logic.

You pretend that I don't know what's going on? Gotcha. You pretend that I am misrepresenting the situation, when I point out that Briffa deleting data is nothing to the warmers, and not a lie of omission? Gotcha!! I am asserting what's false when I assert that deleting data is deleting data? Gotcha!!!!!!eleventy!!

Take your imagined victories and ram them up your snout.



Trying to change the subject (and throwing a childish tantrum) doesn't somehow invalidate the basic question that Smidge204 posed, and that you seem unwilling or unable to answer. Again, why just you choose just 15 years?

You can relate this question to what I pointed out to you before (and that we really didn't get to the bottom of) - according to your own flawed argument, it is currently warming:

www.woodfortrees.org

Put explicitly, if you're willing to just look at 15 years, why not look at just 5 years, then?
 
2012-06-11 01:00:43 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Again, why just did you choose just 15 years?


That makes more sense.
 
2012-06-11 01:02:27 PM  
Okay, nobody picked up on the second idiocy. The first part of the thread title is "New Supercomputer will study climate change. . .". Really? It's going to do what? Take readings? Launch radiosondes?

The computer will NOT study climate change. It will run models faster. Yeah, the same models whose predictions have THREE TIMES the error allowed by the error bars. The same models whose predictions have nearly two orders of magnitude more error than the null hypothesis. Today, people tend to conflate running models with doing science. The only science involved in models is when their predictions are compared against the real world. When that is done in climatology, it is clear that the basic ideas built into the models are incorrect.

What they need to do is FIX THE MODELS, as has been PROVED (mathematically, of course) by Miskolczi HERE. If the basic hypotheses behind climate "science" are wrong -- and they are -- a faster computer won't help much. It doesn't really matter how fast one makes mistakes -- the models STILL will not predict correctly until the politics is taken out of the science.

Climatology has been co-opted by computer modelling. Data are now compared to model output, and, on occasion, the data have been declared wrong because they do not match the predictions of the models. That is not science.
 
2012-06-11 01:47:35 PM  
Zafler:
I normally don't bother with the green text thread shiatter, but hey why not:

Paleoclimatologists have long suspected that the "middle Holocene" or a period roughly from 7,000 to 5,000 years ago, was warmer than the present day... It appears clear that changes in the Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of the Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the northern hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter.

Oh, and hey, the wikipedia article that graph is taken from notes that it is only "quasi-global".

But hey, good job, he started trying to push a new line for dismissing the theory that has literally thousands of supporting data points.

Hey, look, it's another of the anti-science crew, here to tell us that science is done by running models with the hypothesis under test built in, and the data collected are adjusted to fit the model output, and that science is done by polling scientists who make their living generating panic from the conclusions they "science up." Next up: a science Pope to stamp out heresy.

WTF does "quasi-global" even mean? Probably that when Michael Mann's fraud is averaged into the mix, it's not certain that the MWP existed. Leaving the fraud out, though, makes it clear.

If one also leaves out the tree-ring data, since tree ring data is NOT a suitable proxy for temperature, the picture is even clearer. And, here are the last two thousand years from global temperature proxy data sets:


junksciencearchive.com
Loehle, 2008


Note that this is a random selection from various global data sets. Also note that Michael Mann's "hockey stick" reconstruction fails without Keith Briffa's bristlecone pine series -- and also fails if that series is not given extra weight.

An extensive analysis of Michael Mann's fraud, or, perhaps, total incompetence, which became part of the IPCC's 2001 report, is HERE. It includes links and references to all applicable documents, hearings, etc.
 
2012-06-11 01:57:25 PM  

GeneralJim: it's another of the anti-science crew,


LOL ... the man who is a paid shill for big oil is calling other people 'anti-science'.
 
2012-06-11 02:06:34 PM  
Zafler:
These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the northern hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter.

This is typical of the warmer alarmist bullshiat line. Allow me to point out some problems...

First, note the weasel words "should have been." Also note that they are "predicting the past." I could become a "medium" and predict the past... I'd have a stellar record. But, lost in all of this is that we freaking HAVE the record, shown in my previous post, of temperatures from that time. No need to predict the temperature when you have a proxy record. Yet another case where data are given less weight than hypotheses; this is bad science.

Second, note that "warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter" phrase. It is noteworthy that tree-ring data, like that upon which Briffa's, and hence Mann's, research utterly depends, doesn't pick up trends which occur during periods in which a tree is not growing -- at night, and during the winter, for two examples. Other proxies don't depend upon such timing issues. Tree ring width is dependent upon MANY factors. It is used as a proxy for rainfall, too, for example.

And, if you take your readings from a single grove of trees, a herd of animals changing migration patterns and taking more dumps in that grove, thus fertilizing it, will also drastically change the growth of trees. Ironically, the trees ALSO grow faster with more carbon dioxide, which is a seriously complicating factor if you are using the trees to measure the secondary effects of carbon dioxide, and one of the primary effects is to increase the growth. In short, tree-ring width is not a suitable proxy for temperature.
 
2012-06-11 02:40:27 PM  

Farking Canuck: LOL ... the man who is a paid shill for big oil is calling other people 'anti-science'.


It's all in the Urantia Book, man. You just don't KNOW.
 
2012-06-11 02:50:04 PM  

deadcrickets: SevenizGud:
Not familiar with the Industrial Revolution are you? Taking a look at the graphs I can tell exactly where World War 1 and World War 2 occurred as temperatures dropped temporarily. That, alone, should tell you that human influences are there.


Right. The temperature which dropped in 1945...for 30 years. During those same 30 years, we started burning petroleum. How did burning all that petroleum cause no warming for 30 years, then cause 30 years of warming?

/waits for the aerosol magic word
 
2012-06-11 03:50:20 PM  
++ CRAWLING IN MY SKIN ++
*click click click*
++ THESE WOUNDS THEY WILL NOT HEAL ++

/Here I was, expecting a perfectly nice emo computers thread, and instead I get some dude in my Fark deathpool yelling out "Weeaboo!"
 
2012-06-11 05:43:38 PM  

SevenizGud: What is there to understand? Briffa deleted data to hide the fact that his proxy wasn't proxying. And somehow that's you "gotcha" me, eh? Nice logic.


I have 100 years of direct temperature measurement.

I have 5,000 years of tree rings.

I look at these two, and notice a strong correlation between tree ring thickness and temperature.

I can now use tree rings as a proxy for temperature, and with that I can estimate temperatures farther back than I have actual records for.

But I see that tree rings and temperatures only correlate well for years 1 through 80 of my direct temperature measurements. During The last 20 years - the most recent - the correlation begins to weaken.

Now I'm concerned, because if the correlation isn't valid I can't use my proxy data. So I search more data on anything that could affect tree growth other than temperature. I know the temperature is right (I have direct measurements) so I should find other factors.

Eureka! I find a whole host of things that affect tree growth! I can now show that these external factors are interfering with my data, and to what extent they interfere historically. I can now justifiably discard the data that is known to have significant, non-temperature-related influences.

I don't just delete data. I have to justify why I am not including that data.

You know, exactly how you don't justify using data from only the past 15 years.
=Smidge=
 
2012-06-11 07:46:03 PM  
img.photobucket.com

I don't care about all your fancy-dancey graphs. This simple pie chart explains how if the sea level rises, we're all screwed.
 
2012-06-11 09:37:44 PM  

SevenizGud: No lies of omission there, nosireebob.


Ironic, because when people call you on your obvious lies of omission, you throw a fit and try to claim "LOL HADCRUT WILL BE HAPPY TO KNOW YOU THINK THEY ARE LIARS" (hilarious, since this is itself a lie of omission that you're being called on a lie of omission, not a lie about the data).

You deserve to die.
 
2012-06-11 09:50:49 PM  
Mojo, Smidge, Hippy, Jon Snow, et al. - you guys really make these threads fun and informative. Thanks for that.
 
2012-06-12 12:07:11 AM  

GeneralJim: Climatology has been co-opted by computer modelling... That is not science.


The world according to Bevets...er, GeneralJim: Testing scientific models is not science, but consulting religious texts is good science. In fact, science is only beginning to catch up to religion.
 
2012-06-12 12:12:00 AM  
asecondhandconjecture.com
 
2012-06-12 12:17:38 AM  

GeneralJim: Allow me to point out some problems...


Then allow me to retort...

GeneralJim: First, note the weasel words "should have been."


These are not weasel words. It's a statement of what should be according to a particular model, in the same way that the average American male should be 5'9" to 5'10" tall.

Second, hilariously enough, while calling out weasel words, you crop the context to make it appear here that they're referring to anything other than "should have been warmer in the summer AND colder in the winter"

Because you don't understand science, you don't understand this.

GeneralJim: Also note that they are "predicting the past."


No, they are not. They are predicting results of a calculation from a given set of variables. Calculations flow from the present and the results will be generated in the future, once the calculations are completed. All scientific hypotheses work this way; when they model the Universe and extrapolate back to the Big Bang, it is not "junk science" because they're "predicting the past".

Because you don't understand science, you don't understand this.

GeneralJim: I could become a "medium" and predict the past... I'd have a stellar record.


You have a tenuous at best grasp on the present. You've also made statements about threads that have happened in the past that have zero relation to reality, including straight-up lying about the contents of easily quoted posts.

GeneralJim: But, lost in all of this is that we freaking HAVE the record, shown in my previous post, of temperatures from that time. No need to predict the temperature when you have a proxy record.


Demonstrating succinctly that you did not read the article that was posted, and linked to, because you are an idiot, otherwise you would have seen these words:

The paleoclimatic data for the mid-Holocene shows these expected changes, however, there is no evidence to show that the average annual mid-Holocene temperature was warmer than today's temperatures.

And know that, of course, "the paleoclimatic data" is from the very proxy record you whine about here.

Because you don't understand how to read and vet sources and how to properly construct a reply to those sources, you don't understand this.

GeneralJim: Second, note that "warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter" phrase. It is noteworthy that tree-ring data, like that upon which Briffa's, and hence Mann's, research utterly depends, doesn't pick up trends which occur during periods in which a tree is not growing -- at night, and during the winter, for two examples. Other proxies don't depend upon such timing issues. Tree ring width is dependent upon MANY factors. It is used as a proxy for rainfall, too, for example.

And, if you take your readings from a single grove of trees, a herd of animals changing migration patterns and taking more dumps in that grove, thus fertilizing it, will also drastically change the growth of trees. Ironically, the trees ALSO grow faster with more carbon dioxide, which is a seriously complicating factor if you are using the trees to measure the secondary effects of carbon dioxide, and one of the primary effects is to increase the growth. In short, tree-ring width is not a suitable proxy for temperature.


The only thing noteworthy here is that this only reinforces the fact that you are functionally illiterate. At no point was tree ring data mentioned in either the post you are responding to or the article it linked. Not once. Just more blather from you with your pathetic canned arguments, trotting out things you think you understand (but don't) as a counterpoint to things you haven't bothered reading.

It's a pure knee-jerk reaction, to post two paragraphs that address literally nothing, and it's so transparent as to be utterly hilarious.

You don't understand you're even doing this, because you're insane.
 
2012-06-12 12:32:47 AM  

GeneralJim: Tree ring width is dependent upon MANY factors. It is used as a proxy for rainfall, too, for example.

...

In short, tree-ring width is not a suitable proxy for temperature.


Just noticed this doozy too. We'll set aside the fact that Jim spent two paragraphs rambling about trees to respond to a post that didn't mention trees that linked to an article that didn't mention trees.

DENDROCLIMATOLOGY RELIES PRIMARILY ON MAXIMUM LATEWOOD DENSITY AS ITS STRONG PROXY, NOT RING WIDTH, YOU GOD DAMNED MORON.

As for...

GeneralJim: It is noteworthy that tree-ring data, like that upon which Briffa's, and hence Mann's, research utterly depends...


Briffa's method:

Tree-Ring Density Reconstructions of Summer Temperature Patterns across Western North America since 1600

Summer Temperature Patterns over Europe: A Reconstruction from 1750 A.D. Based on Maximum Latewood Density Indices of Conifers


GENERALJIM THINKS DENDROCLIMATOLOGY IS BASED SOLELY ON TREE RING WIDTH, DESPITE THE FACT THAT MXD IS KNOWN AND USED AS A SUPERIOR PROXY. HE WILL SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIM TO BE QUALIFIED TO SECOND GUESS SCIENCE THAT NOT ONLY DOES HE CLEARLY NOT UNDERSTAND, BUT SCIENCE BASED ON MEASURING THINGS HE ISN'T EVEN AWARE ARE BEING MEASURED.

I can just predict his follow-up now:

I clearly said tree-ring data, you big stupid, so I obviously knew about MXD, even though I gave no indication of it and bracketed my discussion of it by only blathering about tree-ring width, giving clear contextual evidence that "tree-ring data" referred to that

...before promptly incorporating this new-found information into his distorted world view and claiming that nobody understands it but him, thread shiatting rambling nonsense about it.
 
2012-06-12 05:08:47 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
The above is based on false information. You know the bit in bold is completely false, and the reason why you see many graphs starting in the "1850-1880 range" is that this is when the 'global' instrumental record begins. No need to construct some sort of conspiracy.

You lying sack. You said before that the reason that charts pretty much all start in 1850-1880 is that ONLY that view gives a perspective on what AGW has wrought.

So, which is it? Do charts start then because "global" (yeah, right) records start then, or because that is the only place to start when looking for AGW effects?
 
2012-06-12 05:22:11 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
Actually, what you've said here isn't that bad. The potential problem is that while other scales can be informative (like the very long one you've highlighted), unsurprisingly, they aren't as useful as one that looks at the scale over which the phenomenon of interest actually occurs.

That is simply bullshiat. Well, let me back off on that a bit... UNLESS you are specifically looking for a way to blame ANYTHING that happens on, in this case, AGW, that is simply bullshiat.

In order to see what AGW is doing, you would ideally look at the exact same time frame, with and without AGW, so you could compare. Due to a lack of proper planning, we do not have a "control planet" to help with actual experiments. But, we make do as best we can. When some clown says "OMG! Temperatures have NEVER risen this fast before!" We can point to records from BEFORE mankind started releasing carbon dioxide and say, well, look here, at about 1694 to 1708, temperatures rose a LOT faster than they have any time since... unless, of course, the asshat only has graphs that start in 1880.

So, if the best method to see what AGW does is to compare times with our carbon dioxide to times without it, of just what benefit is looking ONLY at times where we are releasing carbon dioxide? I mean, other than it being easier to blame EVERYTHING that happens in climate on AGW?
 
2012-06-12 05:46:11 AM  
Farking Canuck:
GeneralJim: it's another of the anti-science crew,

LOL ... the man who is a paid shill for big oil is calling other people 'anti-science'.

You are a lying jackass. I get no pay from anyone for posting. And, you stupid git, don't you know that the oil companies SUPPORT the current proposals for draconian measures such as "cap and tax" because, well, THEIR LAWYERS WROTE THEM?

The oil companies rip the balls off the environmentalists every time they face off. The oil companies are simply smarter to start with, and they hire even smarter people to handle campaigns, and then they LISTEN to them. While the useless idiots in the environmental movement are singing Kumbaya, and organizing protests, oil company lawyers are "assisting" those writing the legislation, and making sure that it doesn't hurt the oil companies.

As always, they succeeded this time, as well. Under the plans under discussion at the U.N., oil company profits will be maximized, and carried on for a much longer time. In case you haven't noticed, you brain-dead prat, the oil companies are not fighting the U.N. in the tiniest bit. They WANT the legislation. And they got the stupid greenies, like yourself, to collect the money, and do their work for them. And, this is NOT the first time.


failblog.wordpress.com
At least THIS child isn't paying the elephant to crap on him.
The greenies are paying to do the oil companies' bidding.
 
2012-06-12 05:50:49 AM  
Smidge204:
I have 100 years of direct temperature measurement.

I have 5,000 years of tree rings.

I look at these two, and notice a strong correlation between tree ring thickness and temperature.

Conclusion: You're farking blind. Tree rings SUCK as temperature proxies. See above.
 
2012-06-12 05:56:54 AM  
Smidge204:
But I see that tree rings and temperatures only correlate well for years 1 through 80 of my direct temperature measurements. During The last 20 years - the most recent - the correlation begins to weaken.

Now I'm concerned, because if the correlation isn't valid I can't use my proxy data. So I search more data on anything that could affect tree growth other than temperature. I know the temperature is right (I have direct measurements) so I should find other factors.

Eureka! I find a whole host of things that affect tree growth! I can now show that these external factors are interfering with my data, and to what extent they interfere historically. I can now justifiably discard the data that is known to have significant, non-temperature-related influences.

I don't just delete data. I have to justify why I am not including that data.

Thanks for the intro to prissy gay science.

If you are doing a compilation piece, you are perfectly entitled to only use data sets you find useful and robust. It would be perfectly reasonable to discard tree-ring temperature proxies, because they simply suck. That's what Loehle did in 2007, updated in 2008. Non-tree ring data only. Good stuff... see it above.
 
2012-06-12 06:00:58 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
SevenizGud: No lies of omission there, nosireebob.

Ironic, because when people call you on your obvious lies of omission, you throw a fit and try to claim "LOL HADCRUT WILL BE HAPPY TO KNOW YOU THINK THEY ARE LIARS" (hilarious, since this is itself a lie of omission that you're being called on a lie of omission, not a lie about the data).

You deserve to die.

Yes, death to all heretics and infidels. That's how science works. Poison and daggers until your team wins by attrition.

/ Was that Einstein who said that?
 
2012-06-12 06:03:54 AM  
Repo Man:
Mojo, Smidge, Hippy, Jon Snow, et al. - you guys really make these threads fun and informative. Thanks for that.

scm-l3.technorati.com
Mojo, Smidge, Hippy, Jon Snow, et al.
 
2012-06-12 06:09:06 AM  
hypnoticus ceratophrys:
GeneralJim: Climatology has been co-opted by computer modelling... That is not science.

The world according to Bevets...er, GeneralJim: Testing scientific models is not science, but consulting religious texts is good science. In fact, science is only beginning to catch up to religion.

Show me ONE time where I used anything religious as a scientific argument; I never have.

You're the only shiatstain around here doing that -- although the ad hom isn't a VALID scientific argument, you're still trying to win a scientific argument with religion. Farking loser. And you're a nasty little loser, too.

But, even with the unpleasantness and toxicity of your personality, that is NOT reason to reject your scientific arguments. The fact that your arguments SUCK is why they should be rejected.
 
2012-06-12 06:12:27 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Because you don't understand science, you don't understand this.

Really? You know what everyone else is thinking, don't you, you delusional little psychopath?
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report