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.

(The Planetary Society)   April 1: Bill Nye convinces Congress that Climate Change and evolution are realities. Not April 1: Bill Nye the Science Guy convinces Congress to restore funding for planetary exploration. Hero trumps cool   (planetary.org) divider line 18
    More: Hero, Timeline of Solar System exploration, evolution, U.S. Congress, climate change, Planetary Society, union dues, Planetary Science, NASA  
•       •       •

3282 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Apr 2013 at 9:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-02 12:01:04 PM
2 votes:

SevenizGud: More reality:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]
But hey, any set of data can have an "off" 15+ years, amirite?


Oh sweet, the green line hovers at just over 0.4?  And the red line is all wiggly?!  I AM DRAWING SO MANY CONCLUSIONS RIGHT NOW

/label yo' axes foo!
2013-04-04 05:20:13 PM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: Ah, "I'm rubber you're glue"

How utterly predictable, and lame.


Uh huh. We presented chapter and verse evidence of why you are factually incorrect (again), and then not only do you again fail to understand the errors in your argument, you accuse of us having a mental illness that relates to inability to recognize personal errors, which is literally the behaviour you are engaging in.

I point out the meta-error you are making, and you respond by claiming I'm the one using a rubber-and-glue argument. You just keep ratcheting up that willful blindness.

When all the available experts tell you you are wrong, when multiple independent sources tell you you are wrong, when the math itself tells you you are wrong, that doesn't mean there is some vast conspiracy of mentally ill people trying to hide the truth.

It means you are wrong.

You really need to get over yourself. You do not know better than every climate scientist and statistician out there whether or not their methodology is valid. You do not have the chops to make actual methodological critiques of their work. You do not get to second-guess the entire peer-review system of an entire discipline. You quote blogs and misrepresented graphs, and then get indignant and complain that you are being ganged up on when everyone points out you are wrong. Well, man up, Nancy. Take your lumps and get used to the fact that what you want to be true is not true. Learn to deal with that disappointment and get on with dealing with reality as it is, rather than how you want it to be. Until you do, we are going to continue mocking you for your abject willful ignorance.
2013-04-04 10:56:30 AM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: Point?

A confounding variable. What of it? Did you even read the page? That's an accusation I may toss out there as food for thought.
A perceived relationship between an independent variable and a dependent variable that has been misestimated due to the failure to account for a confounding factor is termed a spurious relationship, and the presence of misestimation for this reason is termed omitted-variable bias.

Sounds rather exactly like something I may say.

Yes, outliers are removed, as they are not "data". A sensor that reads 500 degrees is broken. 90 degrees in January in south dakota? Yeah, not happening either.

But some of the organizations go above and beyond that, and is evident when you really read their methodology reports, they're quite blatant about it. Berkeley has attempted to not do it so harshly(read: obviously), but they still do so. They all dampen their references for the floating average, for example, and attempt to extrapolate (read: guess) at missing data. sure, some guesses are more reasonable than others, but none are certain by any means, so that only adds another error to propagate.


Except that they are not any of these things when their methodology is examined by people who actually understand the math, unlike idiot denialist shills like yourself. That's why every serious investigation of the methods has vindicated climate scientists, and why derpsters like yourself keep moving the goalposts.

omeganuepsilon: And that link was relevant how?

You're going to have to explain that one, because, in your very limited context, you may as well have said "math".


Given that your problems seems to be a complete inability to understand math, you are actually correct here. Hey, broken clocks and all that.

Here's an explicit point for you: Climate scientists did not invent the statistical techniques they apply. They are applying standard statistical methodologies developed by mathematicians who have nothing to do with climate science to isolate the effects of particular variables in complex chaotic systems with multiple confounds and occasional large outliers that can heavily skew small subsets of the data. They are using exactly the same techniques that anyone else would use for these research topics.

And yet moron derpsters like yourself fail to grasp the larger mathematical context and narrowly focus down on particular cherry picked data points that fall victim to exactly the problems these statistical techniques were developed to eliminate, and then tell yourselves that you've found some kind of ultimate argument against climate change.

www.lowbird.com

Sheesh, you're so willfully ignorant I'm surprised you don't slip completely into solipsism. Oh wait...

omeganuepsilon: I think you all share some mental condition. I brought up a possibility in that thread:

Is extreme stupidity(and hence a lot of religiosity) possibly some type of anosognosia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia


I guess maybe you have. This is just the height of irony driven by lack of self-awareness. You've gone meta. You're so caught up in your echo chamber you're unaware that you're caught up in your echo chamber and believe other people are mentally ill for believing you to be caught up in your echo chamber and you believe they are unaware of it!

Truly, if it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

s3.amazonaws.com
2013-04-04 03:23:21 AM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: I think you all share some mental condition


omeganuepsilon: Go hug a tree  cattle-guard on an already fast moving train.  Just stand in the tracks and embrace it as it gets to you.


Ah, it's always nice to see skeptics engage in a rational debate of the evidence.

omeganuepsilon: Given your fark handle [

Damnhippyfreak], I still have to wonder if you're some kind of role playing troll.  I know it's neither here nor there, but it's still just a tad eerie. Almost like you knew exactly what you joined fark to do, prophetic in a sense, to be a dirty hippy.

Oh, that reminds me of the quote that keeps on giving:

omeganuepsilon:
We're presently following an ice age, there's no where to go but get warmer. A perspective of decades is pointless because we're on that upcurve. The planet, in a majority of the time in that larger picture, has no ice caps. The sky is not falling, we're simply on schedule.

Any other perspective is anti-corporation greenpeace nonsense or a reasonable facsimile thereof.


Gee, I wonder what's really motivating omega to come into climate change threads.
2013-04-04 02:31:37 AM
1 votes:
http://www.savoryinstitute.com/desertification/

Done in one, Or are you guys still wasting time trying to eliminate petrol?

While your getting up to speed on why there is so much carbon running around you should stop sending fake scientists with honorary degrees to congress just because they are celebrities.

Who is next?  Stantz Spengler and Venkman?
2013-04-03 11:46:26 PM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: KiltedBastich: you.

And that link was relevant how?

You're going to have to explain that one, because, in your very limited context, you may as well have said "math".



I don't wish to speak for KiltedBastich, but I can provide additional information. Multivariate statistics (as well as statistics in general) are highly dependent on the use of averages or techinques that "adjust and filter and discard data". To highlight examples, the wiki page that was linked to provides a list of some of the common techniques:

MANOVA - relies on averages during calculation and even in the end spits out whether the means are significantly different between variables

Multivariate regression analysis - relies on averages and discards information about variation in order to generalize a relationship - in fact, the fun stat fact of the day is that any least-squares linear regression generates a line that by necessity includes through the mean of both variables. [the more you know.jpg]

PCA - even worse than just averages discards the variables themselves (we can get into this if you're curious)

etc...

The general idea is that if you're going to exclaim that

omeganuepsilon: Real science doesn't need to adjust and filter and discard data in such ways.


You have a problem with a heck of a lot of science, and statistics, and (as I pointed out in an earlier thread) - pretty much any mathematical operation as they all lose information. Again, I urge you abandon your increasingly irrational Jihad against averages.
2013-04-03 07:56:42 AM
1 votes:

Damnhippyfreak: omeganuepsilon: Unknown_Poltroon: Oh, look what happens when you don't cherry pick the data from 1998 on??  Lying fark.

That's cute.

Similarly small date.

Various graphs, last 213 years

[BEST]
[BEST upper 95% CI]

As long as we're messing with the woodfortrees graph generator [snipped]


Omega posts a bunch of graphs without actually understanding what they mean or how to apply the information and gets calmly rebuffed.  Beautiful.

But don't call him a denier!  He's just an skeptic trying to keep everyone honest even though every point he attempts to make goes against ACC/AGW.

Damnhippyfreak: Unsurprisingly, they are indeed cyclical (it's right in the name, after all). PDO and AMO indexes are calculated by first removing other factors (such as anthropogenic climate change) - it's essentially a residual. Not sure what you were trying to get at by posting those.


It's pretty obvious that he
A) Had no idea the O stood for oscillation
B) Thought he was making some amazing critique of global warming

It's doubly funny to see him referencing data prior to roughly 1900 as in one of the other recent climate change threads he was complaining that the error bars on non modern records are too large to be trusted.
2013-04-03 04:18:32 AM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: Unknown_Poltroon: Oh, look what happens when you don't cherry pick the data from 1998 on??  Lying fark.

That's cute.

Similarly small date.

Various graphs, last 213 years

[BEST]
[BEST upper 95% CI]


As long as we're messing with the woodfortrees graph generator, trends are a bit easier to see if we apply a filter (30 years in this case):

woodfortrees.org
Note that the current warming trend is somewhat pronounced.

That aside, keep in mind the second graph you posted is of the upper 95% CI. Be careful in that the inferences you can draw from such are very limited considering that the CI changes over time.


omeganuepsilon: Those are "bad" because they're land only?


The land-only record isn't bad, you just have to keep in mind its limitations.


omeganuepsilon: Here's some Sea only.

[PDO]

[AMO]

Boy, that looks almost cyclicial...


Unsurprisingly, they are indeed cyclical (it's right in the name, after all). PDO and AMO indexes are calculated by first removing other factors (such as anthropogenic climate change) - it's essentially a residual. Not sure what you were trying to get at by posting those.

Anyway, if you wanted to plot sea surface temperature over time (as a counterpart to the BEST data set), HadSST2 is also an option with the woodfortrees graph generator:

www.woodfortrees.org
Again, the current warming trend is evident. If we combine what we see here with the AMO and PDO indexes you posted, you will note that since they are cyclical, they cannot be responsible for the current warming trend.


omeganuepsilon: How about some sea ice?


[SH]
[NH]


Possible trends would be much easier to see if we were to filter out that strong intra-annual variability:

www.woodfortrees.org

www.woodfortrees.org

This is nothing new. There's been some interesting discussion about why Antarctic sea ice is increasing - reasons for which aren't incompatible with anthropogenic climate change. I was just reading an explanation that was novel to me just yesterday - let me see if I can find it. Here, with the press release with more context here. We can discuss this more if you wish.

omeganuepsilon: But my favorite:

[CO2concentration]

An additional 1/3 of previous levels.
No correlated changes in any of the other data.


Except that there are, in the global land and SST data sets. You also have to keep in mind that simple correlation isn't all that good of a heuristic given the conflation of the underlying mechanisms and processes that affect temperature simultaneously - the PDO and AMO indexes you posted are a good example of this. Let me point you to a post I made in the other thread that address some of this in regards to a similar problem; we can discuss it more if you wish.


omeganuepsilon: Shades of a degree, sure, on charts that also place as high or warmer 200 years ago before we started "murdering" the planet.


Keep in mind that this probably isn't true.  Variability increases the further back in the record as uncertainty increases. Put another way, noise increases the further one looks back. Therefore extreme values further in the past are more likely to be spurious rather than representative - one of the reasons why a filter (as a moving average) is commonly used.
2013-04-03 01:50:18 AM
1 votes:

Unknown_Poltroon: Oh, look what happens when you don't cherry pick the data from 1998 on??  Lying fark.


That's cute.

Similarly small date.

Various graphs, last 213 years


www.woodfortrees.org

www.woodfortrees.org


Those are "bad" because they're land only?  Here's some Sea only.

www.woodfortrees.org

www.woodfortrees.org

Boy, that looks almost cyclicial...

How about some sea ice?

www.woodfortrees.org
www.woodfortrees.org


But my favorite:

www.woodfortrees.org

An additional 1/3 of previous levels.
No correlated changes in any of the other data.  Shades of a degree, sure, on charts that also place as high or warmer 200 years ago before we started "murdering" the planet.

/all dates were as far back as they had data for.
2013-04-02 06:15:52 PM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: curriemaster: /label yo' axes foo!

The axes are the same as they always are for HADCRUT3VGL plots, Genius.

Lemme guess, you had NO IDEA that 2002 meant the year.

And that is the intelligence of your typical Chicken Little, folks.



Weird that you would use HadCRUT3 since it was superceded by HadCRUT4...
www.woodfortrees.org
Oh, that's why.

Well, I suppose if you're going to cherry-pick a period of time to look at, you might as well cherry-pick a data set to use as well.
2013-04-02 06:04:45 PM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: More reality:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]
But hey, any set of data can have an "off" 15+ years, amirite?


www.skepticalscience.net
2013-04-02 12:56:42 PM
1 votes:

KiltedBastich: SevenizGud: More reality:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]
But hey, any set of data can have an "off" 15+ years, amirite?

It's so cute how you always start that graph on the 1998 outlier to deliberately skew the trend.

Oh wait, I did not mean cute, I mean "dishonest and stupid".


What do you mean? His method of selecting and analyzing data is perfectly legitimate. In fact, when we apply Sevenizgud's method to the 2012 election results, we can clearly see that Mitt Romney won every state, and is now our president.

s24.postimg.org
2013-04-02 12:51:39 PM
1 votes:

rogue49: Now, we just need the shuttle or an alternative again...


We're almost there...
0.tqn.com
2013-04-02 12:30:53 PM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: More reality:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]
But hey, any set of data can have an "off" 15+ years, amirite?


It's so cute how you always start that graph on the 1998 outlier to deliberately skew the trend.

Oh wait, I did not mean cute, I mean "dishonest and stupid".
2013-04-02 12:03:24 PM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: More reality:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]
But hey, any set of data can have an "off" 15+ years, amirite?


i25.photobucket.com
2013-04-02 10:21:17 AM
1 votes:

Oakenshield: Hey now. That money could purchase like 1.5 F-35s. What about those manufacturing jobs he so triumphantly pissed away with his little faux "science" tirade?? Typical elitist liberal intellectual America hating Marxist job destroying tax monger. Where will Bill Nye be when North Korea invades Portland?


He'll be running his weather machine from his secret lair atop Bald Peak in an attempt to set the very planet against them, silly.
2013-04-02 10:17:35 AM
1 votes:

Oakenshield: Hey now. That money could purchase like 1.5 F-35s. What about those manufacturing jobs he so triumphantly pissed away with his little faux "science" tirade?? Typical elitist liberal intellectual America hating Marxist job destroying tax monger. Where will Bill Nye be when North Korea invades Portland?


I know you're kidding but it's more like ~94% of one at the current costs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
2013-04-02 09:26:28 AM
1 votes:
Bill Nye, kicking ass and chewing bubblegum.
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report