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.

(NBC News)   Latest dire global warming prediction: Cities will become uncomfortable, with helpful picture of the bottom of the ocean   (nbcnews.com) divider line 114
    More: Interesting, Bottom of the Ocean, global warming, oceans, predictions, human culture, doomsday scenarios, greenhouse gases, climate  
•       •       •

1391 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Oct 2013 at 5:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-10 05:41:04 PM  

Jon Snow: Do you acknowledge that chaos theory is in point of fact not a barrier to understanding the impact of changes in boundary values to the mean state of a system over sufficiently long timescales?


Out of all the people arguing from the warmer side, you are the only one I've seen that has been honest over the years. Even you must get tired of seeing others on here arguing from stupidity even though they are on your "side".
As to your question of chaos theory not being a barrier, I agree, it's not a barrier, but must be accounted for. It extends the "sufficiently long timescales" time such that "unprecedented warming" is not as clear cut as people like Michael Mann and others propose.
I don't like being lied to by people who are supposed to be above reproach. The hockey stick was BS, and the 1 tree that was taken out of Briffa's data that completely changed the results should be enough for anyone to take pause about what we are being told by the IPCC. The idea that it is OK to exaggerate if you believe you are right should not be a tenant in anyone's scientific beliefs.
 
2013-10-10 05:58:28 PM  

diaphoresis: Dammit people... am I going to boil to death or freeze to death? I need to know where to put all my money.


i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-10-10 08:46:27 PM  

MarkEC: you are the only one I've seen that has been honest over the years


While I appreciate the kind sentiment that this shows for me, I can tell you that this has decidedly not been my experience. If you pay attention, there are equally honest people besides me who post in this kinds of threads. You may not see them in every thread, and they may not seem to post very often, but they are around.

Out of all the people arguing from the warmer side

There is no "warmer science", there is just science. There is no "warmer" general circulation of the atmosphere, no "warmer" radiative physics, no "warmer" fluid dynamics.

The physics that underlie the points I make are true irrespective of whether or not humans happen to be altering the climate and apply equally to non-anthropogenic climatic change and the general dynamics of the climate.

Even you must get tired of seeing others on here arguing from stupidity even though they are on your "side".

There are people that make ill-informed claims on this topic from a variety of viewpoints. I do not feel the need to defend any or all of the ones that are not my own.

[Chaos] extends the "sufficiently long timescales" time such that "unprecedented warming" is not as clear cut as people like Michael Mann and others propose.

What does Mike Mann have to do with the paper mentioned in the article, the non-relevance to chaos theory in boundary value problems, etc.?

I don't like being lied to by people who are supposed to be above reproach.

Nobody likes being lied to. Who lied to you?

And no one is "above reproach". I don't even know what that's supposed to mean in this context. Science works because it is successful in the aggregate, not because scientists are flawless robots without human emotion and foibles.

The hockey stick was BS

How did you come to this conclusion?

And what do you believe this means in terms of the reality and attribution of warming to human forcings (principally CO2)?

the 1 tree that was taken out of Briffa's data that completely changed the results

How did you come to this conclusion?

And what do you believe this means in terms of the reality and attribution of warming to human forcings (principally CO2)?

should be enough for anyone to take pause about what we are being told by the IPCC.

What role do you believe the IPCC plays with respect to the primary scientific literature? And what makes you think that without the existence of the IPCC we would not have the same information on the reality and anthropogenic nature of the present climatic change?

The idea that it is OK to exaggerate if you believe you are right should not be a tenant in anyone's scientific beliefs.

I agree. Who said it was okay to do so?
 
2013-10-10 11:16:19 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: WelldeadLink: Farking Canuck: Do you have a link to this second graph in the original document? I would like to understand why they chose to plot it this way.

Have you read any of the IPCC documents, and figured it out yet?


Have you? I provided an explanation upthread to some things you might have missed. Have you had a chance to look at it yet?


You obviously aren't arguing based on facts nor even reading what you said you'd read. You repeated several times that the second graph is not trends, while the IPCC says they are "temperature trends determined by linear regression".
 
2013-10-10 11:21:33 PM  

WelldeadLink: Damnhippyfreak: WelldeadLink: Farking Canuck: Do you have a link to this second graph in the original document? I would like to understand why they chose to plot it this way.

Have you read any of the IPCC documents, and figured it out yet?


Have you? I provided an explanation upthread to some things you might have missed. Have you had a chance to look at it yet?

You obviously aren't arguing based on facts nor even reading what you said you'd read. You repeated several times that the second graph is not trends, while the IPCC says they are "temperature trends determined by linear regression".


My bad. SPM.1 switches addressing terminology. The second graph is "decadal mean values". So all that's needed is to make the first graph be mean values and you'll find them comparable.
 
2013-10-11 12:50:34 AM  

WelldeadLink: WelldeadLink: Damnhippyfreak: WelldeadLink: Farking Canuck: Do you have a link to this second graph in the original document? I would like to understand why they chose to plot it this way.

Have you read any of the IPCC documents, and figured it out yet?


Have you? I provided an explanation upthread to some things you might have missed. Have you had a chance to look at it yet?

You obviously aren't arguing based on facts nor even reading what you said you'd read. You repeated several times that the second graph is not trends, while the IPCC says they are "temperature trends determined by linear regression".

My bad. SPM.1 switches addressing terminology. The second graph is "decadal mean values". So all that's needed is to make the first graph be mean values and you'll find them comparable.


Well, kudos for being willing to admit you made a mistake.
 
2013-10-11 12:51:13 AM  

WelldeadLink: WelldeadLink: Damnhippyfreak: WelldeadLink: Farking Canuck: Do you have a link to this second graph in the original document? I would like to understand why they chose to plot it this way.

Have you read any of the IPCC documents, and figured it out yet?


Have you? I provided an explanation upthread to some things you might have missed. Have you had a chance to look at it yet?

You obviously aren't arguing based on facts nor even reading what you said you'd read. You repeated several times that the second graph is not trends, while the IPCC says they are "temperature trends determined by linear regression".

My bad. SPM.1 switches addressing terminology. The second graph is "decadal mean values". So all that's needed is to make the first graph be mean values and you'll find them comparable.



Well, sure. If you completely changed the first graph to what the second one is is showing, they would then be comparable, of course. However, as they stand, and as you posted them, they are not directly comparable.

So if you've finally got a grasp on what is actually being plotted in those graphs you posted, take a extra minute and learn what they actually mean. As I explained in more detail earlier, the first is showing how short-term trends do not necessarily accurately reflect long-term trends, and the second is showing a way to filter out those short-term trends through decadal averages.

Does that make sense to you?
 
2013-10-11 04:42:06 AM  

Jon Snow: THE GREAT NAME: Prediction is an initial value problem. Chaos theory makes the problem difficult to solve even using numerical methods due to the high sensitivity to initial vlaues

Some kinds of prediction are initial value problems.

Predicting a single realization of a given system's response to stochastic processes is not the same thing as understanding and predicting the mean state's response to changes in boundary values.

Do you not understand this?

The specific outcome of a given role of a fair six-sided die is the result of a host of stochastic processes which are incredibly sensitive to initial conditions. That the range of possible results will always be (in the absence of some external change to the boundary values) between 1 and 6, that the mean value over a large number of rolls will converge on 3.5, etc. are dictated by the boundary values of the system.


The mean value for the climate could only be meaningful over a very long period, say millions or billions of years. Due to the pink-noise behaviour of the system, it does NOT provide any help whatsoever in making prodictions over shorter timescales.
 
2013-10-11 04:45:11 AM  

Farking Canuck: Again, it is the deniers that treat 1998 as special.


Sooo... you don't like being lumped together with other cliamte alarmists, but nonetheless insist on lumping NAME together with so-called "deniers".

Again, since you obviously didnt understand me last time, I do not need the 1998 year to believe that temps have been flat since around then. Just look at the graphs!
 
2013-10-11 04:46:27 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: THE GREAT NAME: Warning: never provide user Damnhippyfreak with a citation. If you do so, he will simply refuse to acknowledge what the cited document actually says. For further info: http://www.fark.com/comments/7634697/82988317#c82988317 . Note that this user claims to be a practising scientist, but has never produced any papers, articles or other research material that can be checked online. He is simply paid by breen interests to produce green propoganda on threads such as this.

[facepalm]

And apparently you still haven't gotten your head around the idea that someone else's opinion, even if you've 'cited' it, can still be wrong.


It was a factual report, from the BBC, a pro-warmist media organisation.
 
2013-10-11 04:55:19 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: As for your new point you've put forward, there's two important points that you need to keep in mind. First is that the fact that the climate has changed in the past is not mutually exclusive with anthropogenic climate change. Second, is that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't just based on looking at trends, but understanding of the underlying processes.


Allow me to jump in here. This is the whole point that sceptics are trying to make. Where is the justification for high certainty that drives political action and placing massive demands on already struggling western economies?

IF it comes from the trends, THEN we have to be sure we have disgnosed them properly. To conclude the 78-98 rise was anthropogenically driven, there would have to be no other explaination. But, both the theory (chaos theory) and empitical measurements from before and since then show that other factors are in play at climatology timescales. In short: debunked.

IF on the other hand, it comes from theory, well, most sceptics agree with greenhouse effect theory, but are sceptical about the strong positive feedbacks that must be added to get IPCC-style catastrophic predictions.

Now, you probably want to say "a bit of each". Or, in the process of a debate, each time one is challenged you hop across to the other so we end up in a cycle, constantly pointing out the flaws with one approach only for you to hop across to the other. Then you get annoyed, saying "boo hoo its not fair those deniers just disagree with everything we say". In reality, every time you make a weak argument, it ois the RESPONSIBILITY of a sceptic to point that out. Ultimately your position is only as strong as your SINGLE best argument.
 
2013-10-11 05:11:17 AM  

MarkEC: Jon Snow: Do you acknowledge that chaos theory is in point of fact not a barrier to understanding the impact of changes in boundary values to the mean state of a system over sufficiently long timescales?

Out of all the people arguing from the warmer side, you are the only one I've seen that has been honest over the years. Even you must get tired of seeing others on here arguing from stupidity even though they are on your "side".
As to your question of chaos theory not being a barrier, I agree, it's not a barrier, but must be accounted for. It extends the "sufficiently long timescales" time such that "unprecedented warming" is not as clear cut as people like Michael Mann and others propose.
I don't like being lied to by people who are supposed to be above reproach. The hockey stick was BS, and the 1 tree that was taken out of Briffa's data that completely changed the results should be enough for anyone to take pause about what we are being told by the IPCC. The idea that it is OK to exaggerate if you believe you are right should not be a tenant in anyone's scientific beliefs.


This is the point I am trying to make. If each year's weather were uncorrelated, so that each year would be like an independent experiment, then the overall pattern would look like white noise. You could average multiple years together using high-school math, basically dividing the standard deviation by root(N) until, at some timescale, you can talk about very low standard deviations, and the unpredictability of "weather" goes away.

Under that assumption, the 78-98 rise would look really scary, and even the level period we are seeing now would still worry you, since white noise ought to revert to the mean.

HOWEVER, it is not white, it is pink (neighbouring years have a positive correlation, causing bigger low-frequency deviations, so that it does not smooth out as you zoom out). If you forget Mann's graph which strongly implied whiteness for the background fluctuations, and look at the real data, you see very obvious fluctuations at timescales of decades, centuries, millenia and above which do not vanish after a little smoothing. There is also quite a bit of published work on chaos theory both as a mathematical entitiy (you can produce pink noise just be coupling a pair of chaotic exciters) and as seen in nature.

It became, at the time in the 80s, the default hypothesis for complex natural systems. Mann et al fooled us all (yes including me for a while) into forgetting about this and reverting to the white noise assumption). Under pink noise, the recent behaviour does not look at all out of place. The future prognosis would be somewhere between level and a fall of about the same rate as the recent rises, though further rises are possible.
 
2013-10-11 08:10:05 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: So if you've finally got a grasp on what is actually being plotted in those graphs you posted, take a extra minute and learn what they actually mean. As I explained in more detail earlier, the first is showing how short-term trends do not necessarily accurately reflect long-term trends, and the second is showing a way to filter out those short-term trends through decadal averages.


Where is it documented that the first graph is not averages between step changes? In what way are averages based on measured climate states less relevant than averages based upon arbitrary ten-year periods in the human calendar? Where does the IPCC show that decadal averages are a relevant statistical method?
 
2013-10-11 08:25:48 AM  
Just to provide one concrete example of pink noise in the climate system (and this is just an example: I am not going to get in an attrition battle over quantity of citations), below is a link to a paper looking at the spectrum of the North Atlantic Oscillation.

NAO is the main driver of UK weather (it can force the jetstream to pass over us, or to the north or to the south). The pink noise behaviour is clearly demonstrated.

Normally, climatists like Mann and Snow would try to trick us into assuming white-noise behaviour. Then when it does not smooth out in the way expected of white noise, they demand an anthropogenic explaination.

http://www.dma.ulpgc.es/profesores/pacheco/Pink.pdf
 
Displayed 14 of 114 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report