REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Prove CTS wrong. Make her eat crow.

POSTED BY: CANTTAKESKY
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 16:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1728
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:02 AM

CANTTAKESKY


People get mad at me for "denying" incontrovertible evidence that the average temperature of the planet is increasing and the average concentration of CO2 is increasing. They said they have thrown tons of evidence at me, and I keep denying it. In a way, they are right. None of the evidence they have thrown at me so far has been convincing to me.

Instead of throwing evidence that I will ignore, why not ask me what I WILL accept? Find it, throw it at me, and watch me stumble around coughing. Then call me names and chew me apart. Won't that be fun?

THIS IS WHAT WILL CONVINCE ME.

Temperature:

1. THE MEAN: The global average surface temperature (GAST), calculated from raw temperature readings.

2. THE SD: The standard deviation of the GAST mentioned in #1, calculated from the raw temperature readings.

3. THE INCREASE: A second GAST that is higher than the first GAST (#1). The difference must be larger than the SD (#2).

So, when you show me the evidence, it should look like this:

Quote:

1. The GAST calculated from raw temp readings in 1900 = 13.6 degrees C.

2. The SD calculated from raw temp readings for the GAST of 13.6 degrees C = 0.2 deg. C.

3. The GAST in 2007 was 14.6 degrees C.
14.6 - 13.6 = 1. 1 is greater than 0.2.
EAT CROW, CTS.


Instead of going on and on about how you've shown me this 50 million times before, why not just show it to me now. It is so simple. Think of it, humiliation galore.

Just do it.

Humperdink (aka CTS)

----
"The real purpose of the scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn't misled you into thinking you know something you don't actually know."
-- Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
THE INCREASE: A second GAST that is higher than the first GAST (#1). The difference must be larger than the SD (#2).
Oh, BTW- blatant misuse of statistics.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:09 AM

CANTTAKESKY


CO2 concentration:

1. THE MEAN: The average CO2 concentration (ACC), calculated from raw CO2 readings.

2. THE SD: The standard deviation of the ACC mentioned in #1, calculated from the raw CO2 readings.

3. THE INCREASE: A second ACC that is higher than the first ACC (#1). The difference must be larger than the SD (#2).

So, when you show me the evidence, it should look like this:

Quote:

1. The ACC calculated from raw CO2 readings in 1960 = 335 ppm

2. The SD calculated from raw CO2 readings for the ACC of 335 ppm = 0.6 ppm

3. The ACC in 2007 = 368 ppm.
368 - 335 = 33. 33 is greater than 0.6.
EAT CROW, CTS.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:11 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, BTW- blatant misuse of statistics.
Whether the stats are sound or not is a different argument. This is what will convince me.

If you have shown me this evidence before as you claim, then surely you can show it to me again. If this is all that will convince me, what's stopping you?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:12 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


See my response in th Norfolk thread CTS. I see why you jumped threads... because you can't answer my points. I'm not going to repeat myself, and I'm too busy to chase down every single mole that you pop up in FFF.net. Folks, just go back to the Norfolk thread. Everything that needs to be said is there.

FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE:

1. Mean (from raw temperatures)- CTS

Because neither I nor you have access to the raw data, and you know it. Raw data is raw data... the millivolts readings from a detector (usually along with temperature, RH, location etc). That has to be compared to the response in mV of a standard (known), which is used to calculate the final concentration or temperature.

THEN those values are stitched together from all over the world, with a notation of the method used to make the measurement (because all kinds of methods are used) along with a notation of the reliability (precision) and accuracy (bias) of the reading. Then those values are averaged. But you can't average them straight... if (for example) you have 1 million reading from the continental USA, 50% of which were made in urban centers, but only 100,000 readings from the middle of the Pacific, then you have to adjust for the relative oversampling of urban USA centers.

I can show you these compilations, but you'll whinge about something, I guarantee it. So why should I go through the bother?-Signy

3. Increase in the mean larger than the SD.-CTS

When scientists are looking at a naturally variable measurement such as temperature, they have to average the values to make them interpretable, and compare changes to the natural underlying variability. I guarantee you, this has already been done. But if I show you the statistics you will again find something the whinge about. You're demanding a consistency of data which doesn't exist in the real world. If someone were to show me the kind of data that you demand, the first thing I would suspect is that they dry-labbed it.. yanno, made it up. Instead of looking for purity, how about looking for reality?It is often messy, but so much more rewarding than fantasy. The data that you're looking for is in the UN report. The "controversy" about the East Anglia emails was a controversy about how to handle data from remote and relatively inaccurate met stations as Tibet. If you really care for truth, start digging there. In any case, I have to start packing for a family visit, so I'll leave you with that thought.-Signy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:14 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full
http://books.google.com/books?id=ozAN5vLbssgC&pg=PA175&dq=average+conc
entration+of+carbon+dioxide+change+worldwide&hl=en&ei=DsXeTN6_H4qusAPWqOX2Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=average%20concentration%20of%20carbon%20dioxide%20change%20worldwide&f=false
www.alcoa.com/global/en/environment/position_papers/carbon_dioxide.asp


I have looked through all those sites and can't find the THREE that I am looking for. Obviously I'm incompetent.

Just find it for me, and post it here (in the format I outlined and with link). When you do, I'll eat crow. That's the deal.

If you're too busy to prove me wrong, well, that's not my fault. Doesn't mean I'm not wrong. It just means it's not my fault no one wants to prove me wrong.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I already your answered your question: the data in RAW form is not available, and not meaningful. For the convenience of other readers... and because I have nothing to hide by jumping threads... I copied my reply here. Really, you're just like Rappy on the topic of economics. I can post the CBO's list of Federal revenues, GINI indexes, IRS data on tax rates, and debt levels all day long, and NOTHING will convince him.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:17 AM

CANTTAKESKY


I started a new threads because the other thread was too long. Tsk, tsk. Always thinking the worst of me.

Here is your post from the Norfolk thread:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=46080

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
You haven't shown me THIS:
1. Mean (from raw temperatures)
Because neither I nor you have access to the raw data, and you know it. Raw data is raw data... the millivolts readings from a detector (usually along with temperature, RH, location etc). That has to be compared to the response in mV of a standard (known), which is used to calculate the final concentration or temperature.

THEN those values are stitched together from all over the world, with a notation of the method used to make the measurement (because all kinds of methods are used) along with a notation of the reliability (precision) and accuracy (bias) of the reading. Then those values are averaged. But you can't average them straight... if (for example) you have 1 million reading from the continental USA, 50% of which were made in urban centers, but only 100,000 readings from the middle of the Pacific, then you have to adjust for the relative oversampling of urban USA centers.

I can show you these compilations, but you'll whinge about something, I guarantee it. So why should I go through the bother?
Quote:
3. Increase in the mean larger than the SD.
When scientists are looking at a naturally variable measurement such as temperature, they have to average the values to make them interpretable, and compare changes to the natural underlying variability. I guarantee you, this has already been done. But if I show you the statistics you will again find something the whinge about. You're demanding a consistency of data which doesn't exist in the real world. If someone were to show me the kind of data that you demand, the first thing I would suspect is that they dry-labbed it.. yanno, made it up. Instead of looking for purity, how about looking for reality?It is often messy, but so much more rewarding than fantasy.

The data that you're looking for is in the UN report. The "controversy" about the East Anglia emails was a controversy about how to handle data from remote and relatively inaccurate met stations as Tibet. If you really care for truth, start digging there.

In any case, I have to start packing for a family visit, so I'll leave you with that thought.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:20 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Whether the stats are sound or not is a different argument. This is what will convince me.
= My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts.

See my response above, or in Norfolk.

Okay, time to pack.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:33 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Because neither I nor you have access to the raw data, and you know it.


No, of course not. But somewhere, surely they are averaging raw data and reporting that average. I mean, IPCC talks about the GAST. What is it? It's not that complicated.

For example, 13.6 deg C is a frequently reported GAST. Surely that came from raw data. That's good enough.

Quote:

Then those values are averaged. But you can't average them straight... if (for example) you have 1 million reading from the continental USA, 50% of which were made in urban centers, but only 100,000 readings from the middle of the Pacific, then you have to adjust for the relative oversampling of urban USA centers.
Ah, so raw temperature readings are weighted and adjusted to compensate for underrepresentation. OK. Give me the GAST from the second generation raw data, the adjusted temp readings.

Quote:
But if I show you the statistics you will again find something the whinge about.


I won't whinge. I will just say whatever variability magic they are doing, none of it is the SD. So it doesn't apply to my challenge.

Show me the SD. Or you can say the SD is impossible and doesn't exist. Then I will say I am not convinced until I see an SD. It's very simple. No whinging.

But it would be very inconsistent for you to insist you have shown me the SD before, and then turn around and say it doesn't exist.

Quote:
You're demanding a consistency of data which doesn't exist in the real world.

I am not demanding that the SD BE a certain value. THAT would be unrealistic. I'm happy to let the SD be whatever it turns out to be. If it shows the data to be consistent, so be it. If it shows the data to be highly variable, so be it.

When you calculate a mean, with weighted data or not, you calculate an SD. It's not a difficult task or concept. It's routine actually, in all the sciences except for climate science.

Quote:
The data that you're looking for is in the UN report.
Is it? I thought you just told me that data was unrealistic or doesn't exist in the real world or something. At any rate, I can't find it in the UN report. So just show it to me.

1. 2. 3. Just show it to me. If it exists (I wasn't sure if you were saying it exists or not).

Have a good trip. Come back here when you have time.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:53 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts.
My mind is made up that this and only this is what will convince me.

The other facts? They just will make me go, "Oh, how fascinating! Let's study it some more and get stronger data, shall we?"

Now if you want to argue about whether my criteria are unreasonable, I'll talk about it. I'm just saying that is a different argument.

So far, the objections to my challenge (all from you, Siggy, I might add) have been:

1. I've shown it before, and you've rejected it.
My answer: False. It has never ever been shown to me.

2. I don't have time to show it to you.
My answer: I'll just wait until you do.

3. Find it yourself.
My answer: I looked and couldn't find it. Sorry.

4. If I show it to you, you'll just reject it.
My answer: I promise I won't. The promise is here in writing. Best I can do.

5. The data doesn't exist.
My answer: Didn't you say you showed it to me before? Never mind. If the data doesn't exist, I won't be convinced until it does.

6. Your criteria are unreasonable.
My answer: The criteria are standard in any science for eyeballing whether an increase in the mean is significant. For example see, below

Quote:
Example 3 - Radioactive Suitcase

As an example, consider determining whether a suitcase contains some radioactive material. Placed under a Geiger counter, it produces 10 counts per minute. The null hypothesis is that no radioactive material is in the suitcase and that all measured counts are due to ambient radioactivity typical of the surrounding air and harmless objects. We can then calculate how likely it is that we would observe 10 counts per minute if the null hypothesis were true. If the null hypothesis predicts (say) on average 9 counts per minute and a standard deviation of 1 count per minute, then we say that the suitcase is compatible with the null hypothesis (this does not guarantee that there is no radioactive material, just that we don't have enough evidence to suggest there is). On the other hand, if the null hypothesis predicts 3 counts per minute and a standard deviation of 1 count per minute, then the suitcase is not compatible with the null hypothesis, and there are likely other factors responsible to produce the measurements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing



My null hypothesis is that an increase from 13.6 dC to 14.6 dC is within the normal variability of the data and is not significant. To convince me my null hypothesis is wrong, you have to show that the change exceeds the standard deviation of the mean (the change is not "normal").

I stand by my criteria.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:59 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I already your answered your question: the data in RAW form is not available,
I don't need to see the raw data. I want to see a mean calculated from the raw data.

Quote:
NOTHING will convince him.
The difference between me and Rappy is that I freely acknowledge that NOTHING will convince me EXCEPT this. So I'm saving you all that time trying to convince me with OTHER data. Show me THIS data, just 3 pieces of information, and we're done!

1.2.3. That's it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2010 8:04 AM

DREAMTROVE


CTS

I'll see you after christmas likely, and then we can talk solutions.

I think this line is a dead end: The system is too complex, too many variables, and any situation which ends in "we must defeat the oil companies" is an auto-"we lose." So, something which aligns our interest in saving the planet with people who already have some power has a lot more hope.

IOW, I think that Sig is wrong, but I'm not ruling out the possibility that she could be right, I just think it's unlikely. OTOH, if she is right, then we all die, end of story. If she's wrong and we follow on the assumption that she is right, then we've just handed control of the world currency to the NWO and neocons can go and set up a one world govt, which as PN says, will look a lot like communist china, or in time, an ant hill. So, for the sake of the planet, I hope we can find another solution, and I also sincerely believe this is not the problem.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2010 8:08 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
CTS

I'll see you after christmas likely, and then we can talk solutions.
You're leaving for 2 months? Have fun!

Quote:
The system is too complex, too many variables, and any situation which ends in "we must defeat the oil companies" is an auto-"we lose."
Call me a hopeless romantic, but I still hold out hope.

Quote:
IOW, I think that Sig is wrong, but I'm not ruling out the possibility that she could be right, I just think it's unlikely.
I have never ruled her out. As I said, I'm a GW agnostic, not an atheist.

Quote:
OTOH, if she is right, then we all die, end of story.
And the human race will win the Darwin award. ;)

We have courses of action we can pursue, whether GW is true or not. I have always maintained that.

-----
1. The mean. 2. The SD. 3. The increase > SD. Show it to me. Make me eat crow.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=46232

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 13, 2010 8:30 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:
You're leaving for 2 months? Have fun!

Working retail through christmas day? Hardly.

Quote:
Quote:
The system is too complex, too many variables, and any situation which ends in "we must defeat the oil companies" is an auto-"we lose."
Call me a hopeless romantic, but I still hold out hope.


Hope is one of the mortal sins that prevents proper action, like its cousins fear and greed.

Quote:
I have never ruled her out. As I said, I'm a GW agnostic, not an atheist.


The main point being that it's a misdirected effort, distracting us from real problems like deforestation and ground water contamination.

Quote:
Quote:
OTOH, if she is right, then we all die, end of story.
And the human race will win the Darwin award. ;)


Oh, it's bound to do that eventually anyway, but I see Sig's scenario as completely unwinnable. If she's right, we lose.

Quote:
We have courses of action we can pursue, whether GW is true or not. I have always maintained that.


Yes, but lets make sure that those have other impacts than neutralizes the change in co2 or even mean temp since neither of those are primary threats. Increase in co2 may actually be a boon to life on earth, but no one should make any change through reckless negligence, it should be deliberate, and done when everyone can be certain that it will be a benefit (like polio vaccines, or curing cancer.)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 14, 2010 3:18 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, BTW- blatant misuse of statistics.
Whether the stats are sound or not is a different argument. This is what will convince me.



This statement seems to shoot you in the foot. It's basically saying, "I don't really care what the FACTS are, just give me something I can BELIEVE." Are you sure you want to put it out there that you're willing to be convinced by unsound data?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 14, 2010 3:38 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, BTW- blatant misuse of statistics.
Whether the stats are sound or not is a different argument. This is what will convince me.

This statement seems to shoot you in the foot. It's basically saying, "I don't really care what the FACTS are, just give me something I can BELIEVE." Are you sure you want to put it out there that you're willing to be convinced by unsound data?


I'm glad you said something because I had no idea it came off that way. Thanks, Mike. My comment was simply to redirect the objection. I didn't want to get bogged down in what I considered to be an absurd tangent. So it was my way of saying, "I'll address your absurd tangent later. For now, just show it to me. If you have already shown it to me a dozen times, then just do it."

The statistics are not unsound. And Siggy cannot prove that it is "unsound." This is the conventional standard used in all sciences except climate science. I would be happy to explain to you why it is sound, complete with references so you know I am not making it up, if you wish.

Edited to add: The actual statistics for determining significance are, of course, more complicated than comparing two means and making sure the second mean is one SD higher than the other means. This method is admittedly an oversimplification, used mostly by scientists to "eyeball" significance without doing calculations. So really, if the difference between the first average and the second average is even half of the SD, I would probably accept it.

To be fair, Siggy could demand that I be more precise and accurate. But if she shows me the 1-2-3, we could then do the more complicated statistical calculations, which would not differ that much from what I asked for, for all intents and purposes.



----
I'll try not to be an arrogant ass. But really, who am I kidding?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 14, 2010 6:01 AM

CANTTAKESKY


The standard deviation (SD) of the global average surface temperature (GAST), the #2 in my 1-2-3, doesn't exist. Actually, the #1, the GAST calculated from raw temperature readings doesn't exist. Despite all Sig's and Mal's claims that they have shown this data to me before (at least a dozen times Sig insists), they never did; they couldn't have because they can't show me something that doesn't exist.

Climatologists do not calculate the GAST in the same way other scientists calculate averages. They plug raw temperature readings into a computer model and tell the model how to adjust the all the readings for number of wet and dry days, humidity, cloud cover, etc. That is, they tell the computer what they imagine the temperatures SHOULD be if all other conditions were equal. Then they take an average of the "imagined" adjusted temperatures over a 30 year period. This average is called a "climatology."

They compare the GAST for each year (also averaged from "imagined" adjusted temperatures) to the climatology. If the GAST in 2010 is larger than the climatology, they say the average temperature in 2010 has increased by such-and-such.

Why would I ask for something that doesn't exist?
1. I was waiting for someone to tell me that data doesn't exist.
2. I was waiting for someone to tell me he/she has shown me something that doesn't exist.

When it comes out that this data I asked for is nonexistent, I can make two points.
1) The data SHOULD exist. It is how everyone else does science. If climate science is going to depart from regular science, it should expect a good amount of skepticism. This is my way of saying, when they start doing things the way everyone else does it, I'll take them more seriously.
2) The averages they calculate are made from, in my view, "imagined" temperature readings instead of raw temperature readings, as most people assume. This use of "imagined" data is a big reason why I am uncertain about their conclusions. Maybe they are very smart and imagine the data very accurately. But I simply can't be sure that's the case. I don't think science should rely that much on "imagined" data. When they start relying more on real raw data, and less on computer modeled "imagined" data, I'll take them more seriously.

When it comes out that someone tells me they've shown me non-existent statistics, I can make two points:
1) They lie. That is, they make assertions that are false in order to make ad hominem attacks.
2) They are ignorant. That is, they don't know enough about how the data is collated to even know they can't lie about having shown it to me and then find the data later.

We can keep on arguing back and forth about whether they've shown me this or whether I've said that. They'll accuse me, I'll defend. They'll say I'm evasive, and I'll say they know nothing but strawmen. But it really is a waste of everyone's time. So now, I just want to skip to the end.

Here is my position. The existing methods and limitations in Climate Science are probabilistic and involve a lot of trust or faith in the researchers' judgments on how they model their data. Maybe the researchers are faithworthy, but I am not used to science involving that much subjectivity. In my view, Climate Science is a "soft" science, and its conclusions are "soft probabilities," very much like how I view psychology. This opinion is not going to change until their methods change. My opinion that GW MIGHT be happening is not going to be any more certain until their methods change and become more empirical.

I won't have a higher level of certainty with more statistics (in my view, all calculated from "imagined" data). More uncertain evidence doesn't make the uncertainty go away. The only way to change my mind is if Climate Science changes its methodology to become more empirical.

----
I give up. I'm just an arrogant ass.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 14, 2010 7:58 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
This statement seems to shoot you in the foot. It's basically saying, "I don't really care what the FACTS are, just give me something I can BELIEVE." Are you sure you want to put it out there that you're willing to be convinced by unsound data?
It does show the non-scientific nature of her approach. Pre-defining the one iota of data that would having meaning for you, regardless of the how that data was obtained, and regardless of the meaning of the umpteen million other bits of data in the world, is pretty close-minded. In fact, it seems a careful arrangement which will ensure that she need not alter her beliefs.

Here's mine: show me the left pinky bone of the obscure fourth cousin of the triceratops but it has to come from 60 million years ago, not 65, and I'll only accept those that are found in upstate New York, and if you don't show me that exact thing I won't believe in evolution so there!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 14, 2010 8:40 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
This statement seems to shoot you in the foot. It's basically saying, "I don't really care what the FACTS are, just give me something I can BELIEVE." Are you sure you want to put it out there that you're willing to be convinced by unsound data?
It does show the non-scientific nature of her approach. Pre-defining the one iota of data that would having meaning for you, regardless of the how that data was obtained, and regardless of the meaning of the umpteen million other bits of data in the world, is pretty close-minded. In fact, it seems a careful arrangement which will ensure that she need not alter her beliefs.

Here's mine: show me the left pinky bone of the obscure fourth cousin of the triceratops but it has to come from 60 million years ago, not 65, and I'll only accept those that are found in upstate New York, and if you don't show me that exact thing I won't believe in evolution so there!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left



Holy crap, M4P! I think you just perfectly channeled AntiMason there for a second!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 16, 2010 8:14 PM

DREAMTROVE


Okay, here's the science. This started out a response to Mal

Mal



Thanks. This potentially illustrates the point, because this is a major time of deforestation. As deforestation is accellerating, and has been, this makes the whole graph a perfect match.

The only snag with the above is "natural co2 trend" lacks justification. I'm not sure it's a meaningful term, or what it's based on.

Still, nice chart, very telling.


Of course, the other side of the debate is that co2 is unquestionably good for the planet, while killing things is not. I would argue that if you can increase co2 without killing things by burning oil, you're definitely helping out.

Planetary ecosystems die from lack of co2, this planet has died from it four time recently, six times in all. Each one is a massive slaughter for the species of the earth.


For the global warming crowd, I just calculated this one out. 60% of all human created co2 pollution is caused by the fact that humans breath.

Now, if humans create 14 billion tons co2 per annum through breathing, and 9 billion tons of co2 through pollution, then we have to consider how much co2 is produced by non-humans breathing.

So, I decided to tackle this by approaching bound carbon biomass.

Total global biomass has been estimated at about 560 billion tonnes C, so with c=12 and o=16, co2=44, 44/12=11/3=3.66*.56T= 2 trillion tons of trapped co2 in biomass. Okay, now we know how much there is.

if we can shorten trillion tons to teratons:
(measured in the total co2 result of the combustion of each)

I did this one twice:
World Biomass co2 = 2-3 teratons
Extant Atmospheric co2 = 3 teratons
Known oil reserve co2 = 0.0003 teratons
Total estimated fossil co2 = 0.28 teratons.
Human, if combusted, co2 = 0.0003 teratons



We know that 3 teratons = 300 ppm so 1 tt=100 ppm
that means the expenditure of the estimated total fossil fuels of the earth remaining would generate 28ppm, pusing us to 398ppm. That's all estimated fossil fuels on the planet. Known oil reserves would be negligible.

Now we can examine the breakdown of biomass.

The ocean represents 99% of the earth's atmospheric biosphere, and holds 97% of the earth's biomass. The remaining land biomass is 99.9% plant biomass, and 0.1% animal biomass.

That would say that land animal biomass is 0.003% of the biomass ie co2=0.006 teratons

This puts humans at a fairly high 5% of land animals. I'm dubious of this as a recent study showed that humans+termites was 97.5% termites. I think that the insect biomass was not counted in one of these studies. My recollection was that the largest mammalian biomass was mice, but that it was dwarfed by all sorts of insects.

Even so, we are getting to some ballpark figures.

And ballpark is as good as we get. Ants are estimated between 9 gigatons, so 0.0066 Teratons co2, making them 22 times more prevalent than humans.

Still, we can now get, within an order of magnitude, the breath of the earth.

If humans represent 0.01% of biomass by one calculation above, and 0.0015% by another, then again we're one order of magnitude in margin of error.

If 40% of human co2 export to the system is fossil fuels, than that represents 0.0006-0.004% of co2 output by the global system.


Okay, this is pretty staggeringly insignificant.


Now, to be nice, let's assume that the world is in a perfect balance and does NOT adjust to changes in output, then we can say

"okay, suppose you just add that 9 gigatons per annum." That would be 0.3% of atmospheric co2. Or 1 ppb. The net increase is less than this, around 0.4 ppb.

If humans produce 14 gigatons of co2 through breathing, than even by the most conservative estimates that's 140 teratons of co2.

This means 15,500 ppb. This would mean that the output of life forms in co2 each year exceeds the extant co2 by around 50 times.

Okay, my math could be off, but before jumping to that conclusion, because I know it's off, but not by that much, so there's another explanation:

Next consider that the co2 output of the biomass is also 25 times the carbon count of the entire ecosphere. Which is to say, barring anything trapped deep within the core, the Earth.

So what's happening here? Each carbon atom is being consumed and exhaled many times in a year.

Furthermore, most carbon systems have to be internally in a very fine balance. Plankton is exhaling co2 which is being consumed by algae nearby, and then bounced back again. If this is thrown out of balance by a few percentage points, the whole system might collapse. Certainly it would if it was 2500%.

So, if this is so, what explains the 3000 and 7700 ppb readings? Are they errors? or is this a case of geologic events which cause a rapid skyrocketing of co2?

Taking for a second both possibilitys

A) Error, seems likely. Events related to temperature change caused co2 to change behavior, and there was more trapped in ice and rock, as it was closer to the surface, causing erroneously high readings.

B) This is also very possible, but would have radical implications. It means that the new co2 did not have a radical effect, but instead was absorbed into the biomass which grew to take in the new co2.

Either way, the data clearly shows that the industrial output of co2 by human consumption of fossil fuels to be negligible to the extreme, and human impact on the ecosystem is a far more likely cause.

Sig said something about a 40% drop in ocean algal levels. This would totally dwarf any impact of human industry. We could still be the cause of the change, but not through co2. Increased co2 would cause enhanced algal blooms, which have also been reported.

But the problem with this datum is that the sea is very resilient, as it is made of tiny rapidly multiplying organisms. It's that 3% of the earth's biomass which is forest which is consuming a tremendous amount of co2 which appears to be the issue.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 1:54 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Mike, I thought of a new analogy last night. If I may, I would like to explain this thread in a new way.

I'm arguing with a guy named Bob.

Bob: "The sky is blue."

CTS: "I dunno. Some people say it isn't blue, that it's orange. Prove it."

Bob: "Here is a picture of the sky that I drew in Photoshop. Clearly you can see that it's blue."

CTS: "That requires that I trust that your understanding of the sky is correct. Too subjective. How about showing me a non-computerized picture of the real sky?"

Bob: "OK, then. Here is a picture I drew of the sky with crayon. And here is one I painted with oils. Look how realistic they look. They're as good as a photograph."

CTS: "Wow, I agree you are a good artist. But you're missing the point. Show me a photo."

Bob: "I show you evidece after evidence and all you ever do is dismiss it. You'd dismiss it no matter what I show you. Why should I give you a photo?


CTS: "I want to see evidence that hasn't been imagined by someone's subjective mind. You want to convince me? Show me a photo. Undoctored. My mind is made up that this evidence is the only thing that will convince me the sky is blue."

Bob: "I've shown you pictures before. What kind of scientist are you, that you don't accept the kind of evidence that exists but demand only a certain kind that doesn't? You're a hack who knows nothing about science."

CTS: "Whatever. Just show it to me before I'll acknowledge that the sky is blue."

Bob: "Nobody takes photos of the sky. The photograph is an oversimplification. The only way to capture the color of the whole sky is through paintings and drawings. You just have to accept the evidence that DOES exist instead of some weird fantasy evidence."

CTS: "Whatever. Just show it to me before I'll acknowledge that the sky is blue."

-----------

So, here is the gist:

1. The evidence I am asking for is made from direct empirical observations without being "adjusted" or "imagined" by someone's mind.

2. The evidence I am asking for is not impossible. It is simply not calculated and therefore doesn't exist.

The reason the scienceofdoom website was able to finally convince me that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas was because they showed me evidence that was not collected through computer modeling, which is a very subjective method. They used math and evidence from experiments.

So I am looking for the right TYPE of evidence. If people keep throwing the wrong TYPE of evidence at me, no matter how much of it they throw, subjective evidence is still subjective evidence.

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 9:14 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I have often wondered about global warming. Specifically, I have wondered why anyone outside of the scientific community (a community that is curious for a living) should care about it except as a hobby.

Whenever I talk to an adherent of the Global Warming Theory, the actions they recommend are almost universally sensible:

Use renewable energy.
Create less pollution.
Conserve natural resources.
Find ways to stress the environment as little as possible.



Whenever I talk to an opponent of the Global Warming Theory, they almost never tell me these things:

Don't use renewable energy.
Create more pullution.
Waste natural resources.
Stress the environment as much as possible.


So, given that the opponents and adherents of the theory are mostly in agreement about how we should live, why is so much passion and hysteria attached to the debate? Global warming is incidental. The 'solution' to Global Warming and 'Sensible Living Techniques for Fun and Profit' seem to be mostly identical.

Can someone illustrate to me what should be critically different about my worldview and lifestyle if Global Warming exists vs. Global Warming not existing?

Regards,

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 9:32 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, BTW- blatant misuse of statistics.
Whether the stats are sound or not is a different argument. This is what will convince me.



Wow.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 9:35 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, BTW- blatant misuse of statistics.
Whether the stats are sound or not is a different argument. This is what will convince me.



This statement seems to shoot you in the foot. It's basically saying, "I don't really care what the FACTS are, just give me something I can BELIEVE." Are you sure you want to put it out there that you're willing to be convinced by unsound data?


We live in the age of truthiness. What feels right is often accepted over what can be proven.

A big part of why we are so fucked.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:04 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
So, given that the opponents and adherents of the theory are mostly in agreement about how we should live, why is so much passion and hysteria attached to the debate?


Legislation to treat CO2 as pollution.

We agree how to live for the most part. But GW proponents also want to legislate their CO2 solutions for GW, to forcibly stop all the GW deniers who DO want to use as much energy as they would like regardless of CO2 output.

GW skeptics use science to block legislation. We say, "We shouldn't legislate until the scientific evidence is stronger." So on and on the debate rages about the scientific evidence.

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:05 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
We live in the age of truthiness. What feels right is often accepted over what can be proven.
I'm not sure what that means. Could you explain?

I hope you get to read the other posts and not just that one snippet of a reply to Sig.

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:09 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

So this is all about carbon dioxide?

I've always considered carbon dioxide to be the least offensive exhaust component of combustion.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:30 AM

DREAMTROVE


I put a decent couple hours work into the problem, which was what someone demanded, and I came up with lots of data. By the end, all my search results were turning up tons of pages of people who had already done this homework.

The numbers there are pretty decisive, I thought.



Anthony,

It's about co2, and a "carbon tax" that the NWO crowd wants. Yes, other pollutants are more dangerous, but in much too low levels to effect the mean temp. of the earth.. Imho, so is co2.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 12:36 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

As I understand it, the 'carbon tax' is just a means of turning exhaust products into a commodity and a source of revenue.

In any event, the switch to renewable energy and resources will have the side effect of lowering carbon emissions. It will accomplish this without touching the issue of global warming, and without instituting a tax. Both renewable energy and renewable resources are popular and have public support even amongst people who disdain the concept of Global Warming.

Maybe you want to save the redwoods. Do you think trees are good for reducing Co2? Well, I think everyone likes forests almost as much as they like wooden furniture. Why entangle that with Global Warming? Let's just plant trees at our lumberyards for all the OTHER good reasons there are to plant trees. Like... So we'll have more of them to make more furniture with. Then we can save the ancient trees for vacationing and tourist revenues.

There are good arguments for virtually every 'Global Warming Remedy' that have nothing to do with Global Warming, and do not require turning exhaust byproducts into a moneymaking scheme.

Do people want to improve the world, or do they want to be right? It's strange to see people fighting the wrong battles for the wrong reasons.

I mean, do we really need the threat of Doctor Manhattan and the Giant Squid in order to motivate us to improve our lives and our world?

If I want to sell you a Delorean, can't I emphasize the salient features we all agree on? The rust-resistant body? The gull-wing doors? The luxurious interior? The rarity and eye-catching nature of the vehicle?

Or must I get into a debate with you about whether it will or will not engage its flux capacitor at 88 Miles Per Hour?

How about I just sell you this car for the reasons you want to buy it, and leave out the Time Travel bit that might ruin the sale? Isn't that better?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 1:02 PM

MAL4PREZ


Discussion moved from other pigs and cows thread:

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:


Thanks. This potentially illustrates the point, because this is a major time of deforestation. As deforestation is accellerating, and has been, this makes the whole graph a perfect match.

The only snag with the above is "natural co2 trend" lacks justification. I'm not sure it's a meaningful term, or what it's based on.


The trend comes from climate cycles caused by orbital variations. When the Earth's in such an orbit to preferentially heat the northern hemisphere, especially at around 65˚ where ice sheets tend to form, the ice retreats and we have breaks in ice ages.

Here:

(The graph from the other thread is essentially a zoom of the top and bottom curves of this graph, except that present time is to the left here, and was to the right on the other.)

The data is from Vostok ice cores, with a model of solar heating as the bottom curve. Four times on this graph we are breaks from ice ages: the present and at about 120, 220, 320, and 420 thousand years ago. You can see how carbon and methane peaked in those warm spells, and for each we had ~20 thousand years of break from the ice sheets. (Sea level and geologic data supports this history, btw.)

But you'll note that every previous time we hit these warm spells, CO2 and CH4 levels peaked early and immediately fell, leading to the new ice age. Not so this time. Something happening in this present warm spell is driving the greenhouse gases to new highs.

And when did the departures happen? At 8000 years ago for CO2 (land clearing for agriculture?) and at 5000 years ago for CH4 (rice irrigation?) What you don't see on these graphs is how it's *really* taken off in the past 100 years.

Who's to say where it will take us? I'd kind of prefer no ice age, if we can manage it without drought, extreme weather, and rises in sea level. Problem is, we don't get to pick and choose.

But one thing's for sure: what's happening now has never happened before. Our climate is slowly lumbering toward a new and different place. Slouching toward Bethlehem, as it were.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 1:06 PM

MAL4PREZ


Another interesting one:




-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 2:14 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
As I understand it, the 'carbon tax' is just a means of turning exhaust products into a commodity and a source of revenue.
Maybe this thread will help you understand the argument a little better.

The most recent RWED GW spat began with this thread called "The Norfolk Island Experiment."
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=46080

It is about a voluntary "cap and trade" program. Cap and Trade is one of the most debated solutions to the perceived man-made CO2 problem. This, then, leads to heavy GW debates.

Here is more on Cap and Trade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

In a nutshell, there are those who want to tax heavy CO2 emitting countries like the USA and send that money to countries that don't emit a lot of CO2, like China. This is a big part of the famous Kyoto Protocol.

I'll leave you with that for now.

You bring up good points Anthony, and I myself am in favor of simply moving on to solutions.

Maybe you can repost these comments on a new "Solution" thread. I tried but it didn't go anywhere.

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 3:40 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mal,

Thanks. Indicative of cycle. Got that with co2 levels?


CTS

China omits an awful lot of co2, more than us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emiss
ions

The only reason they would get off is by potentially being exempt.

But this isn't about transfer of just money, it's a derivatives scheme, it creates a new money.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 4:18 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
China omits an awful lot of co2, more than us.
Oh sorry, you're right.

I vaguely remember reading an article in some fairly reputable magazine (like Time or Newsweek) re factories in China being involved in carbon trading with organizations in the USA. I'll have to hunt that down.

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Joe* blames Nancy, Harris blames Joe*, everyone in the Democrat Party pointing fingers at everybody but themselves
Thu, November 7, 2024 13:54 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 7, 2024 13:43 - 4622 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 7, 2024 13:41 - 7429 posts
MAGA movement
Thu, November 7, 2024 13:35 - 1 posts
Pedophile Freemasons steal $3-billion from Shriners Hospitals
Thu, November 7, 2024 13:22 - 33 posts
Another Democrat Attempt to Control Democracy Fails
Thu, November 7, 2024 12:38 - 49 posts
Countdown Clock, Trump Going to Jail
Thu, November 7, 2024 12:37 - 1487 posts
PREDICTIONS THREAD (v.2)
Thu, November 7, 2024 12:30 - 133 posts
#notquitemetoo
Thu, November 7, 2024 12:24 - 10 posts
Hollywood exposes themselves as the phony whores they are
Thu, November 7, 2024 12:20 - 39 posts
Is anyone else still slightly creeped out by the Japanese?
Thu, November 7, 2024 12:11 - 178 posts
Any Conservative Media Around?
Thu, November 7, 2024 11:46 - 165 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL