Polar Bears would self-ignite - Page 15

fsol · 2nd July 2008, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

Post 507 by Biocab source not provided.

It'll likely be UAH or RSS, I guess depending which of them happens to give the biggest temperature difference over that timescale.

It is pretty dumb even without the broken arithmetic. He could just use a single data set like HadCrut3v but it wouldn't give the answer he wants I guess.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...adcrut3vgl.txt

TrueSceptic · 2nd July 2008, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I am reffering to the first chart, especialy since that is the one that is a reconstruction;
http://biocab.org/Amplitude_Solar_Irradiance.html

My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that it is based primarily upon the sunspot number and a very limited set of modern data. Now I could be incorrect in that, but you will nore Biocabs responses to me do not address the issue of what other data converge on the chart,.

From what I understand, and it could be wrong, there is not a method used to directly measure or approximate the solar radiance from 1750-1970, I asked what other methods were used to substantiate that chart.

Again the increase in solar radiation could be gradual and continuous or it could be chaotic and all at once or in peaks, but I did not see any mention of what other than the increase and sunspots was used to generate the numbers.

When Biocab responded it seemed they agreed that it was just based upon the sunspot numbers.

TSI has only been measured directly by satellite since the late 70s. Figures prior to that are derived from proxies. Sunspot counts have been found to be a good proxy for TSI. Good article here.

I have a file of the various TSI reconstructions from a link that Svalgaard provided. I'll post the link if I find it.

mhaze · 2nd July 2008, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I saw you just dismiss the sources the varwoche referenced and not a critique of them, but i could have missed it as this thread has a high post count.

I have answered the rest.

I notice that you didn't respond to my link to the NOAA data, i understand that you don't like Jansen, but there are plenty of other data sources.

Umm, no, I didn't dismiss Varwoche's sources but read them and dismissed any ability on my part to relate them to any of the several ongoing discussions in a logical way. Nothing wrong with the articles, of course Varwoche included Lockwood, which is pretty much passe and is sort of a strawman effort to deny any and all effects solar on climate.

Derails seeming of no interest...

It isn't that I don't like Hansen, certainly that is a true statement, but rather that his methods are very unscientific. Read his work, then tell me it is not wild ravings based on unsubstantiated assertions, etc. He's done incalculable damage to this area of science in the pursuit of some imagined low carbon economy "goodness".

Although you've probably noticed my ongoing argument with BenBurch, he and I agree on 80% of these things. We agree on the importance of massive building of nuclear power planats, to the order of 500-750, and on the absolute and dangerous idiocy of pumping co2 to the deep ocean. Ben is of the opinion coal is very bad.

Hansen is opposed to nuclear power, in favor of pumping co2 down into the ocean, and opposed to coal power plants. Hansen makes a point to go to communities where coal power plants are being built, and tries to stop them.

I'm of the opinion coal is a practical reality and will be for a long time, and that if it was desirable to replace it, the alternate energy source must be brought on line first, then the "less good" power source discontinued. Strictly from a practical point of view, investments in wind and solar are laughable and cannot do this. Consider the argument. "Let's build an array of (solar, wind) THEN take the local coal power plant off line". No one is stupid enough to try that. Consider some very, very green (as far as the publicity would indicate) oriented community of well off people - San Francisco, Santa Barbara or Taos - Let them build with their own collected tax dollars (solar, wind, etc) power system and go off the fossil fuel power grid.

But they don't do this, do they? But by all means, I encourage them to increase their local property taxes by 10x and see how far they would get with such a fantasy project. We can calculate here in a few posts how laughable this proposition is. The practical reality of power generation is what it is, irrespective of political correctness and lots of posturing. Thus, most intelligent people who have looked at this issue and who have quantified the scales of energy requirements conclude that nuclear is the only way.

As you can see from this very brief outline, I'll classify Hansen a technological Luddite.

Are Hansen's ideas Woo? Yes. Is he an embarrasment to the nation by using his position at NASA to promote narrow, radical left wing environmental opinions? Has he completely gone off the deep end?

Absolutely.

TrueSceptic · 2nd July 2008, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic

TSI has only been measured directly by satellite since the late 70s. Figures prior to that are derived from proxies. Sunspot counts have been found to be a good proxy for TSI. Good article here.

I have a file of the various TSI reconstructions from a link that Svalgaard provided. I'll post the link if I find it.

Svalgaard makes a lot of material freely available. The TSI reconstructions, including his, are here.

biocab · 2nd July 2008, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I am reffering to the first chart, especialy since that is the one that is a reconstruction;
http://biocab.org/Amplitude_Solar_Irradiance.html

My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that it is based primarily upon the sunspot number and a very limited set of modern data. Now I could be incorrect in that, but you will nore Biocabs responses to me do not address the issue of what other data converge on the chart,.

From what I understand, and it could be wrong, there is not a method used to directly measure or approximate the solar radiance from 1750-1970, I asked what other methods were used to substantiate that chart.

Again the increase in solar radiation could be gradual and continuous or it could be chaotic and all at once or in peaks, but I did not see any mention of what other than the increase and sunspots was used to generate the numbers.

When Biocab responded it seemed they agreed that it was just based upon the sunspot numbers.

We included graphs on susnpots only and sunspots+proxies in our article.

biocab · 2nd July 2008, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic

TSI has only been measured directly by satellite since the late 70s. Figures prior to that are derived from proxies. Sunspot counts have been found to be a good proxy for TSI. Good article here.

I have a file of the various TSI reconstructions from a link that Svalgaard provided. I'll post the link if I find it.

We considered databases on sunspots-only and sunspots+proxies. The results are the same. There is a clear correlation between solar activity and change of temperature.

biocab · 2nd July 2008, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by fsol

It'll likely be UAH or RSS, I guess depending which of them happens to give the biggest temperature difference over that timescale.

It is pretty dumb even without the broken arithmetic. He could just use a single data set like HadCrut3v but it wouldn't give the answer he wants I guess.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...adcrut3vgl.txt

Following the mathematics of someone here:

-5 ||||0||||+5

How many degrees (or marks) are between -5 and +5? Someone here said there would be -5+5 degrees, that is 0 degrees, even though you have computed 10 degrees (or marks). You're seeing them...

TrueSceptic · 2nd July 2008, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by biocab

Following the mathematics of someone here:

-5 ||||0||||+5

How many degrees (or marks) are between -5 and +5? Someone here said there would be -5+5 degrees, that is 0 degrees, even though you have computed 10 degrees (or marks). You're seeing them...

Show us the source for your figures of 0.75 warming since 1860 and 0.774 cooling since Jan 2007 and we will explain.

BenBurch · 2nd July 2008, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic

Show us the source for your figures of 0.75 warming since 1860 and 0.774 cooling since Jan 2007 and we will explain.

He has no source.

fsol · 2nd July 2008, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by biocab

Following the mathematics of someone here:

-5 ||||0||||+5

How many degrees (or marks) are between -5 and +5? Someone here said there would be -5+5 degrees, that is 0 degrees, even though you have computed 10 degrees (or marks). You're seeing them...

Careful your ignorance is showing. Besides the whole thread is still available to read. Everyone can see what you originally wrote and how you seem to have no idea of how to add a couple of numbers together. All of this latest stuff, "count the marks" would seem to be a fairly unsuccessful way of trying to make everyone forget that. Unless of course you actually think that the two are analogous, in which case you really should go back to school.

Besides I said that regardless of your broken arithmetic your statement was dumb. Can you figure out why?

TrueSceptic · 2nd July 2008, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

He has no source.

I think he has, but I need to see it to explain the arithmetic to him.

Dancing David · 2nd July 2008, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by biocab

We included graphs on susnpots only and sunspots+proxies in our article.

But as a sceptic i don't buy it, I was raised to question data that is extrapolated, which your chart is, and to say that there might be other ways to verify other than an extrapolated set of data.

I am aware of the correlation between thirty years of data and solar radiance, but there is a big leap to extrapolate that without other data set to provide a cross check. One very large chunk of carbon (like huge planet size) can mess up the nuclear cycle, as could many other dynamics of the interior processes, I then think that it is a mistake to just assume that the sunspots are acurate without substantiation by another source. As accurate as we know the thirty years to be.

So I would say that the graph is tentative until another set of data can confirm it.

Just my thinking, I would not call it speculative but tentative.

Dancing David · 2nd July 2008, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic

TSI has only been measured directly by satellite since the late 70s. Figures prior to that are derived from proxies. Sunspot counts have been found to be a good proxy for TSI. Good article here.

I have a file of the various TSI reconstructions from a link that Svalgaard provided. I'll post the link if I find it.

Thanks for the wiki link, I had read some papers that were similar but not all that in one place.

Which brings a very important question:

If there has been an increase in solar radiance, it would appear that by sunspot number and C¹⁴ as potential proxies that the vast majority of possible increase would have been from 1950 to present.

But the other thing that occurs to me is that there would not need by a step wise increase in raiance from 1750 onwards, but that it fluctutaes, which is not as well supported but might be suggested by the dip at 1850 for both values, I would have to look further into the sampling of C¹⁴ which might be a confounding factor in the overall increase in C¹⁴ since 1750.

Which is a possible verification of the gradual increase in radiance, which might supprt the gradual increase in Biocab's chart.

However I would also expect that there was a large decrease in radiance in 1850.

Dancing David · 2nd July 2008, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Umm, no, I didn't dismiss Varwoche's sources but read them and dismissed any ability on my part to relate them to any of the several ongoing discussions in a logical way. Nothing wrong with the articles, of course Varwoche included Lockwood, which is pretty much passe and is sort of a strawman effort to deny any and all effects solar on climate.

Derails seeming of no interest...

It isn't that I don't like Hansen, certainly that is a true statement, but rather that his methods are very unscientific. Read his work, then tell me it is not wild ravings based on unsubstantiated assertions, etc. He's done incalculable damage to this area of science in the pursuit of some imagined low carbon economy "goodness".

Although you've probably noticed my ongoing argument with BenBurch, he and I agree on 80% of these things. We agree on the importance of massive building of nuclear power planats, to the order of 500-750, and on the absolute and dangerous idiocy of pumping co2 to the deep ocean. Ben is of the opinion coal is very bad.

Hansen is opposed to nuclear power, in favor of pumping co2 down into the ocean, and opposed to coal power plants. Hansen makes a point to go to communities where coal power plants are being built, and tries to stop them.

I'm of the opinion coal is a practical reality and will be for a long time, and that if it was desirable to replace it, the alternate energy source must be brought on line first, then the "less good" power source discontinued. Strictly from a practical point of view, investments in wind and solar are laughable and cannot do this. Consider the argument. "Let's build an array of (solar, wind) THEN take the local coal power plant off line". No one is stupid enough to try that. Consider some very, very green (as far as the publicity would indicate) oriented community of well off people - San Francisco, Santa Barbara or Taos - Let them build with their own collected tax dollars (solar, wind, etc) power system and go off the fossil fuel power grid.

But they don't do this, do they? But by all means, I encourage them to increase their local property taxes by 10x and see how far they would get with such a fantasy project. We can calculate here in a few posts how laughable this proposition is. The practical reality of power generation is what it is, irrespective of political correctness and lots of posturing. Thus, most intelligent people who have looked at this issue and who have quantified the scales of energy requirements conclude that nuclear is the only way.

As you can see from this very brief outline, I'll classify Hansen a technological Luddite.

Are Hansen's ideas Woo? Yes. Is he an embarrasment to the nation by using his position at NASA to promote narrow, radical left wing environmental opinions? Has he completely gone off the deep end?

Absolutely.

So a lot of it is the politics that are unrelated to the issue of anthropogenic global warming.
[derail]
I disagree with some of what you say about altrenate sources of energy, especialy since windfarms are becoming rather common in a county near where I live. The buring of coal could be made safer but given the stalling in the US to fund such research, a hot local issue as GWB torpedoed the Future Gen project once Texas did win it, the switch to safer burning of coal would take some effort, while very worthwile in reducing the level of toxic metals and the like. Similarly there is chance that fuel cells may provide a way to break the fossil feul dependance of electricity generation.
[/derail]

mhaze · 2nd July 2008, 07:43 PM

Actually though I invited cities to walk the walk instead of talking the talk but having done the math it's hard to keep from laughing so hard you canZt tIPe WRIGHT!

mhaze · 2nd July 2008, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Thanks for the wiki link, I had read some papers that were similar but not all that in one place.

Which brings a very important question:

If there has been an increase in solar radiance, it would appear that by sunspot number and C¹⁴ as potential proxies that the vast majority of possible increase would have been from 1950 to present.

But the other thing that occurs to me is that there would not need by a step wise increase in raiance from 1750 onwards, but that it fluctutaes, which is not as well supported but might be suggested by the dip at 1850 for both values, I would have to look further into the sampling of C¹⁴ which might be a confounding factor in the overall increase in C¹⁴ since 1750.

Which is a possible verification of the gradual increase in radiance, which might supprt the gradual increase in Biocab's chart.

However I would also expect that there was a large decrease in radiance in 1850.

BE-10 is also used. This article discusses the method and a bit more. Bold is mine.

Now Ilya G. Usoskin, a geophysicist at the University of Oulu in Finland, and colleagues from the Max Planck Institute for Aeronomy in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany, have discovered that the past sixty years have been the Sun's most magnetically active period in more than a millennium. Almost as intriguing as the discovery itself is the method that led to it: constructing a sunspot record by examining the amounts of a radioactive isotope of beryllium measured in ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica. The isotope, beryllium-10 (Be-10), is produced when cosmic rays--predominantly protons--collide with nitrogen and oxygen nuclei in the Earth's atmosphere. When the Sun is magnetically active, the "wind" of charged particles emanating from it (and dragging along its magnetic field) increases, deflecting cosmic rays and so cutting down on the production of Be-10. The concentration of Be-10 at a given, independently dated level in an ice core reflects the intensity of magnetic activity in the Sun.
Before the team's analysis, the only reliable records of solar magnetic activity were direct counts of sunspots, and those weren't made until 1610, soon after the invention of the telescope. The Be-10 data extend the "fossil record" of the Sun's past activities back to A.D. 850, enabling solar physicists to draw more reliable conclusions about long-term solar cycles.

("Millennium-scale sunspot number reconstruction: Evidence for an unusually active Sun since the 1940s," Physical Review Letters 91:1-4, November 21, 2003)

fsol · 3rd July 2008, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Actually though I invited cities to walk the walk instead of talking the talk but having done the math it's hard to keep from laughing so hard you canZt tIPe WRIGHT!

Please show your working out.

TrueSceptic · 3rd July 2008, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by fsol

Please show your working out.

I couldn't figure out what he was on about. What did I miss?

fsol · 3rd July 2008, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic

I couldn't figure out what he was on about. What did I miss?

Apparently he has done some "math," I assume that is similar to maths. I am guessing it has something to do with wind turbines and that apparently the results are hilarious as it makes him fall about laughing. I was wondering if he would share the joke.

TrueSceptic · 3rd July 2008, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by fsol

Apparently he has done some "math," I assume that is similar to maths. I am guessing it has something to do with wind turbines and that apparently the results are hilarious as it makes him fall about laughing. I was wondering if he would share the joke.

So was I, but I don't know who "cities" is and which post he was replying to (if any).

mhaze · 3rd July 2008, 11:37 AM

Last I heard cities was plural of ....

BenBurch · 3rd July 2008, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Last I heard cities was plural of ....

Cities is the plural of city.

Cites is the plural of cite.

TrueSceptic · 3rd July 2008, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Cities is the plural of city.

Cites is the plural of cite.

Wow, is that what he meant? No wonder it looked like gibberish.

mhaze · 4th July 2008, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by fsol

Apparently he has done some "math," I assume that is similar to maths. I am guessing it has something to do with wind turbines and that apparently the results are hilarious as it makes him fall about laughing. I was wondering if he would share the joke.

Why not start here?

http://www.withouthotair.com/

TrueSceptic · 4th July 2008, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic

I think he has, but I need to see it to explain the arithmetic to him.

Has biocab left us? I was looking forward to the arithmetic lesson!

BTW I saw that he's been posting at CA. That could be fun.

mhaze · 4th July 2008, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Megalodon

Quote:
The hypothesis of AGW has no predictive power. This is a simple observation.

No, that is a lie, since not only it has predictive power, the predictions are happening in front of our eyes......

A lie, eh? An assertion you make too frequently, and never substantiate. I suggest - substantiate any assertions of lying - when your internal Denial Mechanism causes you to compulsively assign such a label to others' simple observations. Else you lie every time you call someone a liar.

Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series by Koutsoyiannis et al. 2008

http://www.uncommondescent.com/scien...re-scientific/

http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850

A brief excerpt:

• GCMs generally reproduce the broad climatic behaviours at different geographical locations and the sequence of wet/dry or warm/cold periods on a mean monthly scale.
• However, model outputs at annual and climatic (30?year) scales are irrelevant with reality; also, they do not reproduce the natural overyear fluctuation and, generally, underestimate the variance and the Hurst coefficient of the observed series; none of the models proves to be systematically better than the others.
• The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency at those scales show that model predictions are much poorer that an elementary prediction based on the time average.
• This makes future climate projections not credible.

fsol · 4th July 2008, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Why not start here?

http://www.withouthotair.com/

Are you David Mackay? You didn't do any maths did you?

From the summary of that book he seems to be suggesting that we need an energy mix. Hardly controversial. Dissappointingly dry too, I was hoping for belly laughs.

biocab · 4th July 2008, 11:46 AM

If you are on the higher step of a stair, let's say that you are on the tenth step above the floor, and you start descending for the stair downstairs, step by step, or meter by meter... Are you going downstairs or upstairs? As you reached the middle of the stair, if the stair is 10 m long, how many meters have you gone downstairs? Goooood! You have counted well, 1m+1m+1m+1m+1m = 5 m Ok! Now continue going downstairs to the floor... Wow! You have completed your walk downstairs. How many meters have you descended from the middle of the stair to the floor? 1m+1m+1m+1m+1m = 5. Very well... Now, let's assume that the steps above the middle of the stair are positive, that the middle of the stair is zero and that the steps below the middle of the stair are negative. Now tell me... How many meters did you go down, from the top of the stairs to the floor? Oh, oh! You are wrong... you didn't go 0 meters down from the top from the stairs to the floor. You've got an F. In statistics, you have to count each meter you descended from the top to the bottom, and the number will be negative because you're descending. Well, take your calculator and sum -0.774 K - 0.75 K... What's the result? Oooh! Perhaps Tx Inst. are not producing good gears...

Megalodon · 4th July 2008, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

A lie, eh? An assertion you make too frequently, and never substantiate.

Au contraire, mon cher mhaze. The reasons for me to call you a liar are plain and obvious for anyone with eyes in their faces and something behind them.

Quote:

I suggest - substantiate any assertions of lying - when your internal Denial Mechanism causes you to compulsively assign such a label to others' simple observations.

The simplest way to do it would be to again remind you of Rahmstorf et al 2007. Model results are predictions of the theory. The observations are within the confidence limits of the model results.

You know this, since I've pointed it out to you numerous times. Still, you assert that the theory has no predictive power. Lie or stupidity, take your pick.

Quote:

Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series by Koutsoyiannis et al. 2008

Koutsoyiannis et al... I like the approach: select eight stations, call them representative, and run with it. This because:

Originally Posted by Koutsoyiannis et al

In practice, the climatic model outputs are downscaled to finer spatial scales, and conclusions are drawn for the evolution of regional climates and hydrological regimes; thus, it is essential to make such comparisons on regional scales and point basis rather than on global or hemispheric scales.

I like their idea, but 8 station comparisons on a global model is pathetic. Also, problems in station choice include, but are not limited to:
- lack of analysis of continental Europe;
- lack of analysis of continental Asia;
- only two stations in the Southern Hemisphere;
- both of which are above the Tropic of Capricorn;
- Three stations in the US, all in coastal areas.

The idea is interesting, and I think I'll propose it as a PhD project in my Uni. It definitely needs work... lots of work.

Most important, and I bold it so that you can't miss it:
If a work is trying to falsify the predictions of AGW, it means that AGW has predictive power. Your argument is defeated by your link, and I'm starting to think I was wrong in calling you a liar...

Quote:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/scien...re-scientific/

BTW, don't look now, but you're linking to an IDiot site. Thanks a lot, now I have to wash my cursor...

mhaze · 4th July 2008, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by fsol

Are you David Mackay? You didn't do any maths did you?

From the summary of that book he seems to be suggesting that we need an energy mix. Hardly controversial. Dissappointingly dry too, I was hoping for belly laughs.

Ah, where it gets funny, is where if and when one of your politicians tries to jack up taxes to pay for one of the ridiculous schemes. Perhaps monkey Monbiot could help ?

Don't like that I picked an an analysis for the UK? Don't happen to want to discuss the details, then?

How about an easy abstraction, then - your choice of method of production of 5gw.

Megalodon · 4th July 2008, 12:29 PM

biocab:

Keep it up! You're the funniest thing since Diamonds' commie scientists trying to destroy the US...

TrueSceptic · 4th July 2008, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by biocab

If you are on the higher step of a stair, let's say that you are on the tenth step above the floor, and you start descending for the stair downstairs, step by step, or meter by meter... Are you going downstairs or upstairs? As you reached the middle of the stair, if the stair is 10 m long, how many meters have you gone downstairs? Goooood! You have counted well, 1m+1m+1m+1m+1m = 5 m Ok! Now continue going downstairs to the floor... Wow! You have completed your walk downstairs. How many meters have you descended from the middle of the stair to the floor? 1m+1m+1m+1m+1m = 5. Very well... Now, let's assume that the steps above the middle of the stair are positive, that the middle of the stair is zero and that the steps below the middle of the stair are negative. Now tell me... How many meters did you go down, from the top of the stairs to the floor? Oh, oh! You are wrong... you didn't go 0 meters down from the top from the stairs to the floor. You've got an F. In statistics, you have to count each meter you descended from the top to the bottom, and the number will be negative because you're descending. Well, take your calculator and sum -0.774 K - 0.75 K... What's the result? Oooh! Perhaps Tx Inst. are not producing good gears...

Please stop repeating variations on what you've already said. We know how arithmetic works. We learnt this stuff when we were very young.

What I want to see is the source of your figures of 0.75 warming and 0.774 cooling. I've asked for this several times now. I want to know if those are actually differences or anomalies.

biocab · 4th July 2008, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic

Please stop repeating variations on what you've already said. We know how arithmetic works. We learnt this stuff when we were very young.

What I want to see is the source of your figures of 0.75 warming and 0.774 cooling. I've asked for this several times now. I want to know if those are actually differences or anomalies.

Those are anomalies. My source is the database provided by the National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) at the University of Alabama in Hunstville. You can get there from BioCab's article on temperature variations. Look for NSSTC link and left click on it:

http://biocab.org/Temperature_Variat...9_to_2006.html

TrueSceptic · 4th July 2008, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by biocab

Those are anomalies. My source is the database provided by the National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) at the University of Alabama in Hunstville. You can get there from BioCab's article on temperature variations. Look for NSSTC link and left click on it:

http://biocab.org/Temperature_Variat...9_to_2006.html

OK, that gives me the figures for 2007-8.

You also said warming of 0.75 since 1860. What's the source for that?

biocab · 4th July 2008, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic

OK, that gives me the figures for 2007-8.

You also said warming of 0.75 since 1860. What's the source for that?

Möeberg's database.

fsol · 4th July 2008, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Ah, where it gets funny, is where if and when one of your politicians tries to jack up taxes to pay for one of the ridiculous schemes. Perhaps monkey Monbiot could help ?

Don't like that I picked an an analysis for the UK? Don't happen to want to discuss the details, then?

How about an easy abstraction, then - your choice of method of production of 5gw.

You really like putting words in other peoples mouths don't you? Why you think I actually want to discuss things with you is, also, beyond me. You have shown time and time again that you are either just not interested in or capable of having a serious discussion.

TrueSceptic · 4th July 2008, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by biocab

Möeberg's database.

This is like getting blood from a stone.

All I want are the 2 figures from which you got the difference of 0.75. Please quote them directly so that there can be no doubt.

mhaze · 4th July 2008, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by fsol

You really like putting words in other peoples mouths don't you? Why you think I actually want to discuss things with you is, also, beyond me. You have shown time and time again that you are either just not interested in or capable of having a serious discussion.

Didn't mean to offend you. The data is on your country with various options and is quite detailed. As you've noticed if you looked at it. A lot briefer than my typing a bunch of words and numbers about an area that you know nothing about.

Nonetheless I shall assume that any discussion of producing 5 gw from urban environmentalist's cherished shrines such as windmills and solar power, and delivering it to consumers at a per kw hour rate and/or with a tax rate that doesn't cause armed rebellion, is a subject that you care not to discuss.

biocab · 4th July 2008, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by TrueSceptic

This is like getting blood from a stone.

All I want are the 2 figures from which you got the difference of 0.75. Please quote them directly so that there can be no doubt.

Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén. 2005. Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low -and high- resolution proxy data. Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613-617, 10 February 2005.

fsol · 4th July 2008, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Didn't mean to offend you. The data is on your country with various options and is quite detailed. As you've noticed if you looked at it. A lot briefer than my typing a bunch of words and numbers about an area that you know nothing about.

Nonetheless I shall assume that any discussion of producing 5 gw from urban environmentalist's cherished shrines such as windmills and solar power, and delivering it to consumers at a per kw hour rate and/or with a tax rate that doesn't cause armed rebellion, is a subject that you care not to discuss.

Considering what I am paid to do for a living your assumptions of what I know "nothing about" are really quite amusing. You are not to know that though of course, I just find it funny.

I made the effort to try and engage you seriously in the past. I discovered I was wasting my time. Piggys latest attempts just confirm further my opinion of you.

2nd July 2008, 05:31 AM	#561
fsol Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,064	Originally Posted by bobdroege7 Post 507 by Biocab source not provided. It'll likely be UAH or RSS, I guess depending which of them happens to give the biggest temperature difference over that timescale. It is pretty dumb even without the broken arithmetic. He could just use a single data set like HadCrut3v but it wouldn't give the answer he wants I guess. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...adcrut3vgl.txt
fsol Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,064

2nd July 2008, 06:45 AM	#563
mhaze Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 15,718	Originally Posted by Dancing David I saw you just dismiss the sources the varwoche referenced and not a critique of them, but i could have missed it as this thread has a high post count. I have answered the rest. I notice that you didn't respond to my link to the NOAA data, i understand that you don't like Jansen, but there are plenty of other data sources. Umm, no, I didn't dismiss Varwoche's sources but read them and dismissed any ability on my part to relate them to any of the several ongoing discussions in a logical way. Nothing wrong with the articles, of course Varwoche included Lockwood, which is pretty much passe and is sort of a strawman effort to deny any and all effects solar on climate. Derails seeming of no interest... It isn't that I don't like Hansen, certainly that is a true statement, but rather that his methods are very unscientific. Read his work, then tell me it is not wild ravings based on unsubstantiated assertions, etc. He's done incalculable damage to this area of science in the pursuit of some imagined low carbon economy "goodness". Although you've probably noticed my ongoing argument with BenBurch, he and I agree on 80% of these things. We agree on the importance of massive building of nuclear power planats, to the order of 500-750, and on the absolute and dangerous idiocy of pumping co2 to the deep ocean. Ben is of the opinion coal is very bad. Hansen is opposed to nuclear power, in favor of pumping co2 down into the ocean, and opposed to coal power plants. Hansen makes a point to go to communities where coal power plants are being built, and tries to stop them. I'm of the opinion coal is a practical reality and will be for a long time, and that if it was desirable to replace it, the alternate energy source must be brought on line first, then the "less good" power source discontinued. Strictly from a practical point of view, investments in wind and solar are laughable and cannot do this. Consider the argument. "Let's build an array of (solar, wind) THEN take the local coal power plant off line". No one is stupid enough to try that. Consider some very, very green (as far as the publicity would indicate) oriented community of well off people - San Francisco, Santa Barbara or Taos - Let them build with their own collected tax dollars (solar, wind, etc) power system and go off the fossil fuel power grid. But they don't do this, do they? But by all means, I encourage them to increase their local property taxes by 10x and see how far they would get with such a fantasy project. We can calculate here in a few posts how laughable this proposition is. The practical reality of power generation is what it is, irrespective of political correctness and lots of posturing. Thus, most intelligent people who have looked at this issue and who have quantified the scales of energy requirements conclude that nuclear is the only way. As you can see from this very brief outline, I'll classify Hansen a technological Luddite. Are Hansen's ideas Woo? Yes. Is he an embarrasment to the nation by using his position at NASA to promote narrow, radical left wing environmental opinions? Has he completely gone off the deep end? Absolutely.
mhaze Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 15,718	Last edited by mhaze; 2nd July 2008 at 06:58 AM.

2nd July 2008, 07:47 AM	#565
biocab Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 172	Originally Posted by Dancing David I am reffering to the first chart, especialy since that is the one that is a reconstruction; http://biocab.org/Amplitude_Solar_Irradiance.html My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that it is based primarily upon the sunspot number and a very limited set of modern data. Now I could be incorrect in that, but you will nore Biocabs responses to me do not address the issue of what other data converge on the chart,. From what I understand, and it could be wrong, there is not a method used to directly measure or approximate the solar radiance from 1750-1970, I asked what other methods were used to substantiate that chart. Again the increase in solar radiation could be gradual and continuous or it could be chaotic and all at once or in peaks, but I did not see any mention of what other than the increase and sunspots was used to generate the numbers. When Biocab responded it seemed they agreed that it was just based upon the sunspot numbers. We included graphs on susnpots only and sunspots+proxies in our article.
biocab Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 172

2nd July 2008, 07:49 AM	#566
biocab Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 172	Originally Posted by TrueSceptic TSI has only been measured directly by satellite since the late 70s. Figures prior to that are derived from proxies. Sunspot counts have been found to be a good proxy for TSI. Good article here. I have a file of the various TSI reconstructions from a link that Svalgaard provided. I'll post the link if I find it. We considered databases on sunspots-only and sunspots+proxies. The results are the same. There is a clear correlation between solar activity and change of temperature.
biocab Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 172

2nd July 2008, 07:53 AM	#567
biocab Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 172	Originally Posted by fsol It'll likely be UAH or RSS, I guess depending which of them happens to give the biggest temperature difference over that timescale. It is pretty dumb even without the broken arithmetic. He could just use a single data set like HadCrut3v but it wouldn't give the answer he wants I guess. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...adcrut3vgl.txt Following the mathematics of someone here: -5 \|\|\|\|0\|\|\|\|+5 How many degrees (or marks) are between -5 and +5? Someone here said there would be -5+5 degrees, that is 0 degrees, even though you have computed 10 degrees (or marks). You're seeing them...
biocab Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 172	Last edited by biocab; 2nd July 2008 at 07:54 AM.

2nd July 2008, 06:43 AM	#562
TrueSceptic Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,143	Originally Posted by Dancing David I am reffering to the first chart, especialy since that is the one that is a reconstruction; http://biocab.org/Amplitude_Solar_Irradiance.html My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that it is based primarily upon the sunspot number and a very limited set of modern data. Now I could be incorrect in that, but you will nore Biocabs responses to me do not address the issue of what other data converge on the chart,. From what I understand, and it could be wrong, there is not a method used to directly measure or approximate the solar radiance from 1750-1970, I asked what other methods were used to substantiate that chart. Again the increase in solar radiation could be gradual and continuous or it could be chaotic and all at once or in peaks, but I did not see any mention of what other than the increase and sunspots was used to generate the numbers. When Biocab responded it seemed they agreed that it was just based upon the sunspot numbers. TSI has only been measured directly by satellite since the late 70s. Figures prior to that are derived from proxies. Sunspot counts have been found to be a good proxy for TSI. Good article here. I have a file of the various TSI reconstructions from a link that Svalgaard provided. I'll post the link if I find it.

2nd July 2008, 07:30 AM	#564
TrueSceptic Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,143	Originally Posted by TrueSceptic TSI has only been measured directly by satellite since the late 70s. Figures prior to that are derived from proxies. Sunspot counts have been found to be a good proxy for TSI. Good article here. I have a file of the various TSI reconstructions from a link that Svalgaard provided. I'll post the link if I find it. Svalgaard makes a lot of material freely available. The TSI reconstructions, including his, are here.

2nd July 2008, 10:03 AM	#568
TrueSceptic Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,143	Originally Posted by biocab Following the mathematics of someone here: -5 \|\|\|\|0\|\|\|\|+5 How many degrees (or marks) are between -5 and +5? Someone here said there would be -5+5 degrees, that is 0 degrees, even though you have computed 10 degrees (or marks). You're seeing them... Show us the source for your figures of 0.75 warming since 1860 and 0.774 cooling since Jan 2007 and we will explain.

2nd July 2008, 10:06 AM	#569
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 37,538	Originally Posted by TrueSceptic Show us the source for your figures of 0.75 warming since 1860 and 0.774 cooling since Jan 2007 and we will explain. He has no source.
	__________________ For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?

2nd July 2008, 10:11 AM	#570
fsol Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,064	Originally Posted by biocab Following the mathematics of someone here: -5 \|\|\|\|0\|\|\|\|+5 How many degrees (or marks) are between -5 and +5? Someone here said there would be -5+5 degrees, that is 0 degrees, even though you have computed 10 degrees (or marks). You're seeing them... Careful your ignorance is showing. Besides the whole thread is still available to read. Everyone can see what you originally wrote and how you seem to have no idea of how to add a couple of numbers together. All of this latest stuff, "count the marks" would seem to be a fairly unsuccessful way of trying to make everyone forget that. Unless of course you actually think that the two are analogous, in which case you really should go back to school. Besides I said that regardless of your broken arithmetic your statement was dumb. Can you figure out why?
fsol Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,064

2nd July 2008, 10:12 AM	#571
TrueSceptic Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,143	Originally Posted by BenBurch He has no source. I think he has, but I need to see it to explain the arithmetic to him.

2nd July 2008, 06:33 PM	#572
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: central Illinois Posts: 39,700	Originally Posted by biocab We included graphs on susnpots only and sunspots+proxies in our article. But as a sceptic i don't buy it, I was raised to question data that is extrapolated, which your chart is, and to say that there might be other ways to verify other than an extrapolated set of data. I am aware of the correlation between thirty years of data and solar radiance, but there is a big leap to extrapolate that without other data set to provide a cross check. One very large chunk of carbon (like huge planet size) can mess up the nuclear cycle, as could many other dynamics of the interior processes, I then think that it is a mistake to just assume that the sunspots are acurate without substantiation by another source. As accurate as we know the thirty years to be. So I would say that the graph is tentative until another set of data can confirm it. Just my thinking, I would not call it speculative but tentative.
	__________________ I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

2nd July 2008, 06:50 PM	#573
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: central Illinois Posts: 39,700	Originally Posted by TrueSceptic TSI has only been measured directly by satellite since the late 70s. Figures prior to that are derived from proxies. Sunspot counts have been found to be a good proxy for TSI. Good article here. I have a file of the various TSI reconstructions from a link that Svalgaard provided. I'll post the link if I find it. Thanks for the wiki link, I had read some papers that were similar but not all that in one place. Which brings a very important question: If there has been an increase in solar radiance, it would appear that by sunspot number and C¹⁴ as potential proxies that the vast majority of possible increase would have been from 1950 to present. But the other thing that occurs to me is that there would not need by a step wise increase in raiance from 1750 onwards, but that it fluctutaes, which is not as well supported but might be suggested by the dip at 1850 for both values, I would have to look further into the sampling of C¹⁴ which might be a confounding factor in the overall increase in C¹⁴ since 1750. Which is a possible verification of the gradual increase in radiance, which might supprt the gradual increase in Biocab's chart. However I would also expect that there was a large decrease in radiance in 1850.
	__________________ I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

2nd July 2008, 06:56 PM	#574
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: central Illinois Posts: 39,700	Originally Posted by mhaze Umm, no, I didn't dismiss Varwoche's sources but read them and dismissed any ability on my part to relate them to any of the several ongoing discussions in a logical way. Nothing wrong with the articles, of course Varwoche included Lockwood, which is pretty much passe and is sort of a strawman effort to deny any and all effects solar on climate. Derails seeming of no interest... It isn't that I don't like Hansen, certainly that is a true statement, but rather that his methods are very unscientific. Read his work, then tell me it is not wild ravings based on unsubstantiated assertions, etc. He's done incalculable damage to this area of science in the pursuit of some imagined low carbon economy "goodness". Although you've probably noticed my ongoing argument with BenBurch, he and I agree on 80% of these things. We agree on the importance of massive building of nuclear power planats, to the order of 500-750, and on the absolute and dangerous idiocy of pumping co2 to the deep ocean. Ben is of the opinion coal is very bad. Hansen is opposed to nuclear power, in favor of pumping co2 down into the ocean, and opposed to coal power plants. Hansen makes a point to go to communities where coal power plants are being built, and tries to stop them. I'm of the opinion coal is a practical reality and will be for a long time, and that if it was desirable to replace it, the alternate energy source must be brought on line first, then the "less good" power source discontinued. Strictly from a practical point of view, investments in wind and solar are laughable and cannot do this. Consider the argument. "Let's build an array of (solar, wind) THEN take the local coal power plant off line". No one is stupid enough to try that. Consider some very, very green (as far as the publicity would indicate) oriented community of well off people - San Francisco, Santa Barbara or Taos - Let them build with their own collected tax dollars (solar, wind, etc) power system and go off the fossil fuel power grid. But they don't do this, do they? But by all means, I encourage them to increase their local property taxes by 10x and see how far they would get with such a fantasy project. We can calculate here in a few posts how laughable this proposition is. The practical reality of power generation is what it is, irrespective of political correctness and lots of posturing. Thus, most intelligent people who have looked at this issue and who have quantified the scales of energy requirements conclude that nuclear is the only way. As you can see from this very brief outline, I'll classify Hansen a technological Luddite. Are Hansen's ideas Woo? Yes. Is he an embarrasment to the nation by using his position at NASA to promote narrow, radical left wing environmental opinions? Has he completely gone off the deep end? Absolutely. So a lot of it is the politics that are unrelated to the issue of anthropogenic global warming. [derail] I disagree with some of what you say about altrenate sources of energy, especialy since windfarms are becoming rather common in a county near where I live. The buring of coal could be made safer but given the stalling in the US to fund such research, a hot local issue as GWB torpedoed the Future Gen project once Texas did win it, the switch to safer burning of coal would take some effort, while very worthwile in reducing the level of toxic metals and the like. Similarly there is chance that fuel cells may provide a way to break the fossil feul dependance of electricity generation. [/derail]
	__________________ I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

2nd July 2008, 07:43 PM	#575
mhaze Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 15,718	Actually though I invited cities to walk the walk instead of talking the talk but having done the math it's hard to keep from laughing so hard you canZt tIPe WRIGHT!
mhaze Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 15,718

2nd July 2008, 07:52 PM	#576
mhaze Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 15,718	Originally Posted by Dancing David Thanks for the wiki link, I had read some papers that were similar but not all that in one place. Which brings a very important question: If there has been an increase in solar radiance, it would appear that by sunspot number and C¹⁴ as potential proxies that the vast majority of possible increase would have been from 1950 to present. But the other thing that occurs to me is that there would not need by a step wise increase in raiance from 1750 onwards, but that it fluctutaes, which is not as well supported but might be suggested by the dip at 1850 for both values, I would have to look further into the sampling of C¹⁴ which might be a confounding factor in the overall increase in C¹⁴ since 1750. Which is a possible verification of the gradual increase in radiance, which might supprt the gradual increase in Biocab's chart. However I would also expect that there was a large decrease in radiance in 1850. BE-10 is also used. This article discusses the method and a bit more. Bold is mine. Now Ilya G. Usoskin, a geophysicist at the University of Oulu in Finland, and colleagues from the Max Planck Institute for Aeronomy in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany, have discovered that the past sixty years have been the Sun's most magnetically active period in more than a millennium. Almost as intriguing as the discovery itself is the method that led to it: constructing a sunspot record by examining the amounts of a radioactive isotope of beryllium measured in ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica. The isotope, beryllium-10 (Be-10), is produced when cosmic rays--predominantly protons--collide with nitrogen and oxygen nuclei in the Earth's atmosphere. When the Sun is magnetically active, the "wind" of charged particles emanating from it (and dragging along its magnetic field) increases, deflecting cosmic rays and so cutting down on the production of Be-10. The concentration of Be-10 at a given, independently dated level in an ice core reflects the intensity of magnetic activity in the Sun. Before the team's analysis, the only reliable records of solar magnetic activity were direct counts of sunspots, and those weren't made until 1610, soon after the invention of the telescope. The Be-10 data extend the "fossil record" of the Sun's past activities back to A.D. 850, enabling solar physicists to draw more reliable conclusions about long-term solar cycles. ("Millennium-scale sunspot number reconstruction: Evidence for an unusually active Sun since the 1940s," Physical Review Letters 91:1-4, November 21, 2003)
mhaze Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 15,718

3rd July 2008, 12:38 AM	#577
fsol Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,064	Originally Posted by mhaze Actually though I invited cities to walk the walk instead of talking the talk but having done the math it's hard to keep from laughing so hard you canZt tIPe WRIGHT! Please show your working out.
fsol Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,064

3rd July 2008, 07:08 AM	#578
TrueSceptic Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,143	Originally Posted by fsol Please show your working out. I couldn't figure out what he was on about. What did I miss?

3rd July 2008, 09:24 AM	#579
fsol Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,064	Originally Posted by TrueSceptic I couldn't figure out what he was on about. What did I miss? Apparently he has done some "math," I assume that is similar to maths. I am guessing it has something to do with wind turbines and that apparently the results are hilarious as it makes him fall about laughing. I was wondering if he would share the joke.
fsol Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,064

3rd July 2008, 09:42 AM	#580
TrueSceptic Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,143	Originally Posted by fsol Apparently he has done some "math," I assume that is similar to maths. I am guessing it has something to do with wind turbines and that apparently the results are hilarious as it makes him fall about laughing. I was wondering if he would share the joke. So was I, but I don't know who "cities" is and which post he was replying to (if any).

3rd July 2008, 11:37 AM	#581
mhaze Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 15,718	Last I heard cities was plural of ....
mhaze Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 15,718

3rd July 2008, 01:59 PM	#582
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 37,538	Originally Posted by mhaze Last I heard cities was plural of .... Cities is the plural of city. Cites is the plural of cite.
	__________________ For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?

3rd July 2008, 02:07 PM	#583
TrueSceptic Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,143	Originally Posted by BenBurch Cities is the plural of city. Cites is the plural of cite. Wow, is that what he meant? No wonder it looked like gibberish.

4th July 2008, 05:56 AM	#584
mhaze Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 15,718	Originally Posted by fsol Apparently he has done some "math," I assume that is similar to maths. I am guessing it has something to do with wind turbines and that apparently the results are hilarious as it makes him fall about laughing. I was wondering if he would share the joke. Why not start here? http://www.withouthotair.com/
mhaze Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 15,718

4th July 2008, 07:50 AM	#585
TrueSceptic Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,143	Originally Posted by TrueSceptic I think he has, but I need to see it to explain the arithmetic to him. Has biocab left us? I was looking forward to the arithmetic lesson! BTW I saw that he's been posting at CA. That could be fun.

4th July 2008, 09:11 AM	#586
mhaze Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 15,718	Originally Posted by Megalodon Quote: The hypothesis of AGW has no predictive power. This is a simple observation. No, that is a lie, since not only it has predictive power, the predictions are happening in front of our eyes...... A lie, eh? An assertion you make too frequently, and never substantiate. I suggest - substantiate any assertions of lying - when your internal Denial Mechanism causes you to compulsively assign such a label to others' simple observations. Else you lie every time you call someone a liar. Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series by Koutsoyiannis et al. 2008 http://www.uncommondescent.com/scien...re-scientific/ http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850 A brief excerpt: • GCMs generally reproduce the broad climatic behaviours at different geographical locations and the sequence of wet/dry or warm/cold periods on a mean monthly scale. • However, model outputs at annual and climatic (30?year) scales are irrelevant with reality; also, they do not reproduce the natural overyear fluctuation and, generally, underestimate the variance and the Hurst coefficient of the observed series; none of the models proves to be systematically better than the others. • The huge negative values of coefficients of efficiency at those scales show that model predictions are much poorer that an elementary prediction based on the time average. • This makes future climate projections not credible.
mhaze Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 15,718	Last edited by mhaze; 4th July 2008 at 09:14 AM.

4th July 2008, 10:49 AM	#587
fsol Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,064	Originally Posted by mhaze Why not start here? http://www.withouthotair.com/ Are you David Mackay? You didn't do any maths did you? From the summary of that book he seems to be suggesting that we need an energy mix. Hardly controversial. Dissappointingly dry too, I was hoping for belly laughs.
fsol Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,064

4th July 2008, 11:46 AM	#588
biocab Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 172	If you are on the higher step of a stair, let's say that you are on the tenth step above the floor, and you start descending for the stair downstairs, step by step, or meter by meter... Are you going downstairs or upstairs? As you reached the middle of the stair, if the stair is 10 m long, how many meters have you gone downstairs? Goooood! You have counted well, 1m+1m+1m+1m+1m = 5 m Ok! Now continue going downstairs to the floor... Wow! You have completed your walk downstairs. How many meters have you descended from the middle of the stair to the floor? 1m+1m+1m+1m+1m = 5. Very well... Now, let's assume that the steps above the middle of the stair are positive, that the middle of the stair is zero and that the steps below the middle of the stair are negative. Now tell me... How many meters did you go down, from the top of the stairs to the floor? Oh, oh! You are wrong... you didn't go 0 meters down from the top from the stairs to the floor. You've got an F. In statistics, you have to count each meter you descended from the top to the bottom, and the number will be negative because you're descending. Well, take your calculator and sum -0.774 K - 0.75 K... What's the result? Oooh! Perhaps Tx Inst. are not producing good gears...
biocab Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 172	Last edited by biocab; 4th July 2008 at 11:48 AM.

4th July 2008, 12:25 PM	#589
Megalodon Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 3,228	Originally Posted by mhaze A lie, eh? An assertion you make too frequently, and never substantiate. Au contraire, mon cher mhaze. The reasons for me to call you a liar are plain and obvious for anyone with eyes in their faces and something behind them. Quote: I suggest - substantiate any assertions of lying - when your internal Denial Mechanism causes you to compulsively assign such a label to others' simple observations. The simplest way to do it would be to again remind you of Rahmstorf et al 2007. Model results are predictions of the theory. The observations are within the confidence limits of the model results. You know this, since I've pointed it out to you numerous times. Still, you assert that the theory has no predictive power. Lie or stupidity, take your pick. Quote: Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series by Koutsoyiannis et al. 2008 Koutsoyiannis et al... I like the approach: select eight stations, call them representative, and run with it. This because: Originally Posted by Koutsoyiannis et al In practice, the climatic model outputs are downscaled to finer spatial scales, and conclusions are drawn for the evolution of regional climates and hydrological regimes; thus, it is essential to make such comparisons on regional scales and point basis rather than on global or hemispheric scales. I like their idea, but 8 station comparisons on a global model is pathetic. Also, problems in station choice include, but are not limited to: - lack of analysis of continental Europe; - lack of analysis of continental Asia; - only two stations in the Southern Hemisphere; - both of which are above the Tropic of Capricorn; - Three stations in the US, all in coastal areas. The idea is interesting, and I think I'll propose it as a PhD project in my Uni. It definitely needs work... lots of work. Most important, and I bold it so that you can't miss it: If a work is trying to falsify the predictions of AGW, it means that AGW has predictive power. Your argument is defeated by your link, and I'm starting to think I was wrong in calling you a liar... Quote: http://www.uncommondescent.com/scien...re-scientific/ BTW, don't look now, but you're linking to an IDiot site. Thanks a lot, now I have to wash my cursor...
Megalodon Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 3,228	__________________ Stupid is depressing...

4th July 2008, 12:26 PM	#590
mhaze Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 15,718	Originally Posted by fsol Are you David Mackay? You didn't do any maths did you? From the summary of that book he seems to be suggesting that we need an energy mix. Hardly controversial. Dissappointingly dry too, I was hoping for belly laughs. Ah, where it gets funny, is where if and when one of your politicians tries to jack up taxes to pay for one of the ridiculous schemes. Perhaps monkey Monbiot could help ? Don't like that I picked an an analysis for the UK? Don't happen to want to discuss the details, then? How about an easy abstraction, then - your choice of method of production of 5gw.
mhaze Banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 15,718

4th July 2008, 12:29 PM	#591
Megalodon Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 3,228	biocab: Keep it up! You're the funniest thing since Diamonds' commie scientists trying to destroy the US...
Megalodon Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 3,228	__________________ Stupid is depressing...

4th July 2008, 02:03 PM	#592
TrueSceptic Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,143	Originally Posted by biocab If you are on the higher step of a stair, let's say that you are on the tenth step above the floor, and you start descending for the stair downstairs, step by step, or meter by meter... Are you going downstairs or upstairs? As you reached the middle of the stair, if the stair is 10 m long, how many meters have you gone downstairs? Goooood! You have counted well, 1m+1m+1m+1m+1m = 5 m Ok! Now continue going downstairs to the floor... Wow! You have completed your walk downstairs. How many meters have you descended from the middle of the stair to the floor? 1m+1m+1m+1m+1m = 5. Very well... Now, let's assume that the steps above the middle of the stair are positive, that the middle of the stair is zero and that the steps below the middle of the stair are negative. Now tell me... How many meters did you go down, from the top of the stairs to the floor? Oh, oh! You are wrong... you didn't go 0 meters down from the top from the stairs to the floor. You've got an F. In statistics, you have to count each meter you descended from the top to the bottom, and the number will be negative because you're descending. Well, take your calculator and sum -0.774 K - 0.75 K... What's the result? Oooh! Perhaps Tx Inst. are not producing good gears... Please stop repeating variations on what you've already said. We know how arithmetic works. We learnt this stuff when we were very young. What I want to see is the source of your figures of 0.75 warming and 0.774 cooling. I've asked for this several times now. I want to know if those are actually differences or anomalies.

4th July 2008, 02:11 PM	#593
biocab Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 172	Originally Posted by TrueSceptic Please stop repeating variations on what you've already said. We know how arithmetic works. We learnt this stuff when we were very young. What I want to see is the source of your figures of 0.75 warming and 0.774 cooling. I've asked for this several times now. I want to know if those are actually differences or anomalies. Those are anomalies. My source is the database provided by the National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) at the University of Alabama in Hunstville. You can get there from BioCab's article on temperature variations. Look for NSSTC link and left click on it: http://biocab.org/Temperature_Variat...9_to_2006.html
biocab Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 172	Last edited by biocab; 4th July 2008 at 02:13 PM. Reason: Name of the center

4th July 2008, 02:29 PM	#594
TrueSceptic Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,143	Originally Posted by biocab Those are anomalies. My source is the database provided by the National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) at the University of Alabama in Hunstville. You can get there from BioCab's article on temperature variations. Look for NSSTC link and left click on it: http://biocab.org/Temperature_Variat...9_to_2006.html OK, that gives me the figures for 2007-8. You also said warming of 0.75 since 1860. What's the source for that?

4th July 2008, 02:54 PM	#595
biocab Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 172	Originally Posted by TrueSceptic OK, that gives me the figures for 2007-8. You also said warming of 0.75 since 1860. What's the source for that? Möeberg's database.
biocab Thinker Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 172