Yet another study confirms hockey stick

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Poor Debater, Apr 23, 2013.

  1. gslack

    gslack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No its fact, that IS how anomaly charts and graphs are done it's common sense...



    Yes it is as we see, you are misled right now. it shows anomalous readings thats it...



    LOL, what are you talking about? If its taken over time, a single day will be extrapolated from the expected temps both before and after that lost recording... Sorry man but now you're not making sense. A loss of one station will not show a loss it will be neither a loss or a gain. A lost sensor station will not be viewed as a lower temperature by default, that would be silly. They have many ways to extrapolate a close approximation of the temps in a given station. They can take the temps the day before and day after and take in the satelite weather information for that day and BINGO, a close estimate..

    Anthony watts just used Raw data in his latest paper...http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al-2012-figures-and-tables-final1.pdf

    Also as I said they can be manipulated depending on the criteria and methods. You may also remember watts tries to correct the data they release... So they release an anomaly chart he corrects the errors using the raw data. They release actual temps charts he tries to correct those using raw data...He corrects what is released, and releases his own like his latest using raw data..


    No it's not and it's a silly claim to make.

    No they do not USE all the data to make the charts. Why call it an anomaly chart if you are going to use all the data? The very nature of an anomaly chart states it's not representative of all the data, just of the anomalies or those that stand out form the norm or average... Dude you can do a chart using all the data available, or you can take the data and average it to make a chart, or you can do a chart of anomalies where you take the average from the data and, show the anomalous readings...

    This is how anomaly charts work, it's designed to give a brief example of what things do over a long time period. A full data chart would be to hard to work with, so they average the numbers, and pick out anomalous readings and chart the results. I am only saying the process is highly interpretive and only as reliable as the process and those doing it..
     
  2. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And your source for this falsehood is ... what, exactly? Did you just make it up out of your head? Just guessing? Just like it cuz it sounds good?
    I thought so.

    Wrong when you said it the first time, wrong when you said it the second time, and still wrong. You must enjoy being so wrong so much of the time. I can't imagine any other reason you persist in being wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Again.

    First of all, it's clear you know nothing about the actual data. If you did, you would know that the issue isn't a single day here or there. The issue is that new stations start recording, and old stations stop recording ... permanently. That's not just a day missing here or there.

    Not true at all. Let's say we have three stations. In year 1, the mean temperatures are 15, 14, and -8 (for an average of 7. In Year 2, the mean temperatures are 16, 15, and -7 (for an average of 8 ). In year 3, station 1 stops recording, and the mean temperatures of the two remaining stations are 16 and -6, for an average of 5. Now here's the question for you, slacker: did the temperature actually drop in Year 3? Or is this a data issue only?

    What, you're saying we should just invent data when it's missing?? That's just plain nuts. You don't have to extrapolate anything if you use anomalies.

    Nope. Clearly you haven't actually read the paper. If you had, you would have seen that "The process is started by computing monthly anomalies relative to a 30-year baseline period" (my emphasis). When Watts uses the word "raw" in this paper, he's talking about ungridded anomalies, rather than the standard gridded anomalies. But they're still anomalies. Says so, right there in the text, page 17, line 325.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/watts-et-al_2012_discussion_paper_webrelease.pdf

    If it's manipulated, it's not an anomaly, it's some other statistic for some other purpose. If it's an anomaly, it's not manipulated.

    Who's "they" that Watts is correcting?

    Fine. If you think it's mathematically possible to manipulate an anomaly and make it still be an anomaly, prove it. Find (or create) some raw data, and show me a manipulated anomaly that's still an anomaly. You can't do it, because there is one and only one way to compute an anomaly. If you do anything else in any other way, it's NOT an anomaly. Period.

    You've been challenged. Now put up or shut up.

    Because the mean of the anomalies is always zero, but the actual temperature is (usually) much higher than zero. You call it an anomaly so that boneheads don't think the anomaly is the temperature. The anomaly is the change in temperature from a defined base period.

    Show me an anomaly chart that makes such a claim.

    ... but taking an average also uses all the data ...
    Which also uses all the data. Because you're taking an average.

    Oh, you were so close. Then you blew it at the end. Yes, you average the data. Yes, you make a chart with that (if you want). But no, you don't "pick out anomalous readings" to make the chart. All readings are converted to anomalies. Every single one of them. All the data is there.

    Yes, that's what you're saying all right. But you're still just plain wrong.
     
  3. gslack

    gslack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dude,why are continually quoting each line? It's overkill, confounds the point and makes it ever harder to respond to.. It's unnecessary..

    My source for this is common sense, which you seem to be refusing to use... You realize you first argued my definition of an anomaly chart, only to post something that completely reiterated my claim, then you argued against that..

    Do you know what an anomaly is?'

    Your silly claim about missing stations is ridiculous. They don't average the temps that way, I explained this, you refuse to accept it.. Do you honestly think that a missing stations temp recording will show a negative number by default? It won't matter what the stations around ti say, they will extrapolate the temperature using satelite data for that time frame, and the temps for the times prior and after, along with the expected temps for that season and conditions.. They won't call it a negative and lower the overall numbers that would be ignorant.

    Look you are obviously are either misinformed or you just don't understand it, either way, your claim is a silly one and makes no sense either scientifically or otherwise. You are using word play and it's backfiring on you. Your claims don't make sense, and you argue against your own claims. It's called circle-talk and you are doing it now...

    An anomalies chart is exactly as the name implies, a chart of the anomalous readings in a data set. It is only as accurate as the methods and those behind it. If it were a chart of averages, it would say "average" but it doesn't say that it says anomalies. Anomalies gotten from taking the data readings and picking the "odd" ones out. Do that over a time period as long as this one and you have to work with averages more than specific temp values, so they take their anomalies from the broader averages, either way it's a chart of the anomalies, and can be highly interpretive...

    Don't like it? Good me either, I find it misleading and highly speculative and only strengthens my point about the so-called "science" on this from many sources being unreliable. However you feel about this, the fact remains it is nothing more than what I have stated. Take it up with those who do them, all I did was explain what they represent...

    BTW, one other reason they use anomalies charts on matters involving temperature reconstruction, is they can't give actual temps anyway. They extrapolate the "best guess" temps using various means such as tree rings, ice cores, and other forensic methods. They can't be exact, they cannot be anymore detailed than a year on a tree ring analysis, for example, and that again assumes a constant and steady growth rate every year. Ice core samples are dubious as far an accurate timeline because again they have to assume a fair amount of consistency in growth and expansion as well as contraction. They can get a good idea of how old a glacier is by examining it's depth, size, bio-materials, and gas contents in the ice, but they cannot be completely 100% on it. That limitation alone makes the findings based on that assumption dubious as well.

    Hence why they use anomalies charts in this particular case specifically... They can't be anymore detailed than that, they are reconstructing from before anybodies memory and using gas bubble content and bio-matter remnants to do it...
     
  4. gslack

    gslack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just noticed your point about Watts paper.. Good catch I missed that part... But he explains why they used the method....

    They did that so they can fairly compare the previous works of Mann. In other words to make a correction to an existing graph.. But fair enough he did use an anomaly method there. Good catch on that,I did miss that part.

    However the point remains the same. An anomaly chart is as I described, and can be manipulated and it has been shown several times in the past they indeed have manipulated their findings. This is undeniable..
     
  5. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You post your way, and I'll post my way. If you can't understand what I'm saying, read it again. Take as much time as you need.

    Oh, now I get it. You didn't actually read the Methods section of any actual scientific paper that uses anomalies, to find out how they were actually computed. No, instead you guessed at how they did it, using your own "common sense", and then you guessed again that they did it wrong, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, except for your own guesses. That is such an amazingly convincing way to make an argument. You should be a lawyer.

    Sorry, dude, but real people need actual evidence. Be sure and let us know if you ever get any, won't you?

    I certainly do. But it has become completely apparent that you do not.

    Of course they don't do it that way. That's exactly why they use anomalies instead of actual temperatures.

    No. And I never said that. Next time, read for comprehension.

    Yet another series of guesses about how scientists work. Yet another series of wrong guesses. Show me any scientific paper that actually describes such a process. There have been thousands and thousands of climate change papers produced over the last few decades, so finding just one wouldn't be hard, if you're right. I'll even give you a hint: start with Google Scholar.

    Wrong again. Look, let's make this easy. Here's the actual source code used by NASA GISS to determine their global temperatures:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/GISTEMP_sources.tar.gz

    If you compile and run this code, you will get the same result that NASA publishes. But you don't even have to compile the code to prove your point. Just find me the line of code that throws out data to make an anomaly. Find me the code that substitutes missing data for satellite data. If what you're saying is true, it should be obvious and easy.

    And if you can't read FORTRAN, the same code translated to Python can be found here:
    http://clearclimatecode.org/code/

    Use either source. (Hint: you won't find what you're looking for. Because it's not there.)

    In other words, since you don't have one shred of evidence to support your claims, you throw up a smokescreen and pretend you don't need no stinkin' evidence, because you've got your infallible common sense. Sorry, dude, that won't fly. Real people need actual evidence. Put up or shut up.

    So, I ask you for evidence that what you said is true -- that "an anomaly chart states it's not representative of all the data," and you provide me with:
    ZERO EVIDENCE. Just a lot of circular talk.
    Which is why nobody believes a word you're saying.

    It's not that. It's that I don't believe it. Not one word of what you're saying. And I don't believe it because it's not true.

    So this fantasy method, which you have admitted comes not from evidence but only from "common sense", (i.e., it comes from inside your own head) is now "misleading" and "highly speculative". In that case, I suggest you need to get your head examined to remove those misleading and highly speculative thoughts of yours.

    And therein lies the problem. It's nothing more than what you have stated. There is no evidence to back up those statements.

    All you did was lie about them and their methods, and claim you know what they did better than they know what they did. Then, when challenged to present evidence of your false statements, you folded like a house of cards.

    In fact they can use actual temperatures, and often do, when looking at a single proxy. When combining multiple proxies, they combine them in the standard way, using anomalies.

    For paleo studies, you don't need anything more precise than a year anyway. And no, there is no assumption of constant growth; in fact it is the non-constant growth that shows the temperature variations.

    Wrong again. Ice cores have annual layers. It's easy to see the layers and count them.

    [video=youtube;Atp412HEHDY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atp412HEHDY[/video]

    Wrong again. Anomalies have just as much detail as actual temps.
     
  6. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes he does. And he never says the method is wrong, or flawed, or misleading, or "highly speculative". That comes only from inside your head.

    It's not undeniable at all. I deny that right now. But if I'm wrong, it's easy to prove, dude, if you have evidence (which you don't).

    So: Where has "it been shown several times" that anomalies are wrong? Or manipulated?
     
  7. gslack

    gslack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So what? he doesn't say anything about it either way.. And to claim his lack of saying something means anything is presumptuous.. To think not saying something means something specific comes from your head..


    Oh now get your self all bound up sparky, your own linked explanation agreed with my explanation. You didn't like it so now you pretend it didn't.. Fine pretend all you want..

    Take your pick dude... Mann has been wrong more than I can count...The anomalies charts are only as good as the people behind them and their methods.
     
  8. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In other words, you have zero evidence.

    It most certainly does not. The only study I have linked to in this thread is Watts', and Watts' study doesn't agree with your ideas anywhere at any time. And you have not (and cannot) provide any actual quote from Watts' study (like I did) that supports your position.

    In other words, you have zero evidence.

    So you can't count to ONE? Because so far the actual evidence you have presented that Mann has been wrong in anything is ZERO. In fact, the National Research Council looked very closely at Mann's work, and agreed that the evidence supported his conclusions.

    In other words, you have zero evidence.
     
  9. gslack

    gslack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ROFL is that the standard obfuscation method taught at the Al gore academy? Quote each line and confound the topic? Dude I am not going to play this ridiculous game with you. I don't have your amount of free time. Want fair debate? Fine then stop quoting every line like this...

    Sorry but if you're going to spend hours citing each line you need a job..

    I don't have that luxury, and I don't have the patience to respond in kind.. You don't like what I think fine, but I know I'm right, moreover your own cited source proved it. All I am telling you is anomalies charts can be manipulated, they have been wrong in the past hence Watts and a few others having jobs... Deny it all you wish, post random videos that define ice core sample analysis, it won't mean you understand it and as we can see you certainly won't bother to try.

    LOL, you actually grabbed the code? Obsess a bit do you? Why not just ask them,"hey did you alter that data?" I'm sure they will be honest about it I mean it's only their careers .. Gimme a break man...

    Now that's all the time I got for this. It's too long and too full of gibberish... Seriously man, did you really expect anyone to read all of that???
     
  10. Poor Debater

    Poor Debater New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,427
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you think it's unfair that I respond to each and every incorrect statement you make? You would rather I just ignore enough of your incorrect statements so that you don't have to actually defend your incorrect statements? And you think that's "fair"?

    I completely disagree. I think you should have to defend each and every false statement you make. If you're not up to that task, the remedy is simple: stop saying stuff that you can't defend.

    Oh goody! Does that mean you're going to shut up now? Looks like I win.

    So we've got a video actually showing annual layers in the ice core, and even that's not enough to convince gslack that he's just plain wrong about ice core dating?

    As Groucho Marx said, "Who are you going to believe -- me, or your own eyes?"

    So you admit that there is not one shred of actual evidence to support your conspracy theory -- and yet you believe it anyway. Do you realize how ridiculous that makes you look?

    Yeah, reading must be really, really hard. I bet you don't read actual scientific papers either, because sometimes they're more than one page long. Next time I'll write in words of one syllable just for you. (Damn, "syllable" has three syllables ...)
     
  11. gslack

    gslack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it's lame and weak.. Fair has nothing to do with it.. It's a tiring way to confound the debate.. It's overkill, unnecessary, and quite pedantic..

    LOL,the "layers" you keep speaking of from your utube video, doesn't change anything...You are trying to pretend a utube video mentioning ice core layers has bearing on what I said.The fact is it doesn't .It's just you posturing again.. So what the ice cores layers show a timeline? How accurate is it? How does it make a difference in the point I made? it doesn't, all it does is show you trying to play scientist and googling things..

    OCD much? Lighten up.. You're not a scientist, you grabbed a zip file of code that is available from the website. You didn't use it, you didn't compile it, you didn't prove anything with it,all you did was google and download. Only a person like you would call what you did evidence of anything. Again, next time just ask them if they altered the results? It would save time since that's all you're doing anyway...

    ROFL,love you internet scientists.. It's such a new concept, I have never seen this game before....
     
  12. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    While I reserve judgement on climate change because I haven't done sufficient research (and neither have the vast majority of you, by the way), this argument is stupid. CO2 is supposed to trap heat from the sun. It's an insulator. It doesn't create additional heat. Solar panels are far more efficient at extracting solar energy than any such system would be. Additionally, the example has nothing at all to do with the picture of climate change proponents advocate.

    CO2 isn't some magical gas that somehow produces energy from just the sun, their idea is that the vast amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will slow the emission of energy from the Earth and result in a few degrees change, it's not going to all of a sudden make the atmosphere boiling temperature so you can extract energy from it via turbines.

    You make your side of the debate look retarded. Not the best idea. At least attack their position rather than some strawman invented out of ignorance or dishonesty.
     
  13. gslack

    gslack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    An insulator does not make something hotter, and the claim that AGW theory makes is that in this case the atmosphere actually warms the planets surface. The AGW proponents in fact claim CO2 warms the planets surface beyond that which it is already warmed by the sun, by back-radiation of the IR radiation given off by the planets surface when warmed by the sun. That is indeed their claim, check it out if you don't believe it.

    Clearly you haven't done much research on it...

    Here's one of the proponents websites trying to explain this...

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/17/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation/

    and another from the famous Roy Spencer a guy who believes in theory but just doesn't buy the extremist view..

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/

    There you have one proponent and one middle-ground advocate of the theory explaining in no uncertain terms exactly what you have just claimed isn't the theory at all...I can get more examples if you wish. The fact is the greenhouse gas/AGW theory does indeed claim the atmosphere warms the planets surface beyond its temperature achieved from it's source... I have no problem calling it an insulator,in fact if you read my posts you would see I state the atmosphere disperses and dissipates heat from the surface, but that is not what AGW theory states.

    Frankly you just made your side of the debate look retarded. May be you should do a little more research before accusing me of ignorance or dishonesty...
     
  14. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Well you are right in your first statement

    Me? About 10 years of research debating this topic - enough at least to have a pretty good handle on both sides of the debate. Many of the others on here have done more, far far more than me

    So no assumptions eh?

    Oh! and you are 100% wrong about the CO2 BTW - the only people who think that is how it is supposed to work are.............................come to think of it can't think of any. Tell you what though I will post you a picture

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's exactly what I said. It traps heat on Earth, did you not read my post at all? That is your position, is it not?
     
  16. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Sorry old chap - I thought I had deleted this post. Lesson learnt - Do NOT post after going out having 3 glasses of wine and 2 margaritas - little pie eyed when I posted
     
  17. dudeman

    dudeman New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do. Don't preach. If you want to live without air conditioning, heat, automobiles, etc. Do it and shut up. There are processes called "actions" and "Al Gore actions" (i.e. you sacrifice so that I can be fat and lazy and not sacrifice).
     
  18. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Wa Hoo! Someone mentioned Al Gore so I get to post about Christopher Monckton!!

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/8579999/Lord-entertains-but-not-everyone-convinced
     
  19. dudeman

    dudeman New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Run around in circles all you like. If Al Gore is the beginning and "Lord" Monkton is the end, tire yourself out. After you are done, there is still the issue of who is actually going to "sacrifice" for the planet. I see a lot of fatsos in the industrialized countries. I don't see much sacrifice.
     
  20. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Mankind as a whole can either sacrifice now or suffer later. With the drought last year and the cold spring this year you better hope for warmer weather in the corn belt soon. And once it does warm up hope for decent rainfall.

    The world needs the grain.

    The high arctic is warmer than average and the world is still warming. We are having almost perfect weather for agriculture here in Bama.
     
  21. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Good for you - with the hot summer we look to be out of water in many of the stations here by August - the Monsoon completely failed
     
  22. gslack

    gslack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

    What exactly is your op-ed piece you linked to saying? Seriously read it and explain what it is implying. Is it implying anything or just making vague half-references the own writers own thoughts? It almost gives the impression it's about to say something definitive, and then much like the other poster here do all too often, it doesn't address anything or make a clear point much less opinion..The article reads like someone who wants to say something of substance and show conviction, but for whatever reason chickens out..So please enlighten me as to what exactly it's saying...
     
  23. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    gslack
    This message is hidden because gslack is on your ignore list.
     
  24. gslack

    gslack New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Messages:
    306
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's convenient.. LOL
    In your last post to me you were called on your claim about Muller. Seems muller and berkley earth (which you tried to pass off as being from berkley university) disagree with you, I point it out so you ignore me? ROFL.
     
  25. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I may have spoken too soon about the weather. We may be having your Monsoon.

    Rain...rain... and more rain. The pastures are becoming flooded and even though I just moved the little piggies, they are still in the mud. But they do have some shelter under the trees.

    Too bad we couldn't send you some rain...we have plenty.
     

Share This Page