The surge



William Asher wrote:

> Next you're going to call me a dumbass for arguing with people on the internet.


Well at least they don't do dope checks at the special olympics.
..
 
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Feb 9, 7:31 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> How did you know he used variance adjusted data? I didn't see that
>> in the .pdf doc. It just says it is data from the Hadley Center.

>
> Never mind that. As I can tell now, it looks like the Hadley Centre is
> the only v-adj data.


Exactly.

Of course, the other alternative which does not involve doctoring is that he
mis-quoted his source and didn't use the data set he pointed to. That may
sound like the sin is only sloppiness, but the problem is that the Hadley
Centre data are the ones that are most commonly cited so if you're using
something different, particularly a private data set, you ought to have
remembered it. It's sort of like saying you're using US Census Bureau data
and instead it turns out you were using some private survey -- it's possible
to make that kind of mistake but you really shouldn't confuse one for the
other.
 
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Feb 9, 12:42 am, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:

>
>>> If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will
>>> see that the temperature peaked in 2004

>>
>> Somehow I don't find it hard to believe that you would cherry pick
>> through a bunch of alternatives to find a "six point polynomial
>> average" that shows what you want.

>
> If you want to say his filter choice is wrong for estimating or even
> predicting a compression of the warming trend, then you should argue
> why the estimator (filter) is a poor choice.


No, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying that one can almost always find
some polynomial of a particular order that can produce a particular effect
post hoc. Why six points, and not five or seven?

For example, Bob Carter argued that the evidence showed global cooling from
1998 to 2005 based on a 25-month smooth. That's horseshit. 25 months sounds
like a lot of points but there is substantial seasonality in global temps
(since the amounts of land mass in the northern and southern hemispheres
differ).

> Also, you never answered why/how you happened upon this particular
> discrepancy. How did you? I think it is very obscure.


Sigh. It is obscure. But at the time I was teaching a class that included a
little piece on nonparametric smoothers and I needed some data to illustrate
the ideas and methods.
 
Bill C wrote:
> On Feb 9, 8:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>>"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>>On Feb 9, 7:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>>
>>>>So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
>>>>anthropomorphic global warming.

>>
>>>Your hysterical now. I haven't said a word about what I think on the
>>>global warming issue. Just on your treatment of the people involved.

>>
>>My mistake, I meant - just like your DOD conspiracy theories.

>
>
> Yep, me, the GAO, SFTT, the VFW, the American Legion, people in
> congress the VA, etc... have all raised lots of these points, but
> were all obviously communist infiltrated lunatics out to destroy YOUR
> America.
> I admit it. I tend to agree with people like SFTT, the veterans
> groups, people still on active duty I talk with, etc...
> You are so paranoid you can't seperate legitimate concerns for the
> troops on the ground from people like Cindy Sheehan.
> Amerika Uber Alles. Chavez is hyping "The Fatherland" like a ghost of
> the past. Maybe you can do it here.
> Never question the leadership, unless they are from another
> viewpoint, then they are criminal scum.
> You really need your own little compound in Idaho.
> Bill C
>


Bill,

Lets get one thing straight: eunuch is not just paranoid, but a
knuckle-dragging, right-wing Christo-Fascist who cant see the
intellectual forest for the trees, no matter how many of them have been
chopped down for him to see.
 
On Feb 10, 3:30 am, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 12:42 am, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Tom Kunich wrote:

>
> >>> If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will
> >>> see that the temperature peaked in 2004

>
> >> Somehow I don't find it hard to believe that you would cherry pick
> >> through a bunch of alternatives to find a "six point polynomial
> >> average" that shows what you want.

>
> > If you want to say his filter choice is wrong for estimating or even
> > predicting a compression of the warming trend, then you should argue
> > why the estimator (filter) is a poor choice.

>
> No, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying that one can almost always find
> some polynomial of a particular order that can produce a particular effect
> post hoc. Why six points, and not five or seven?
>
> For example, Bob Carter argued that the evidence showed global cooling from
> 1998 to 2005 based on a 25-month smooth. That's horseshit. 25 months sounds
> like a lot of points but there is substantial seasonality in global temps
> (since the amounts of land mass in the northern and southern hemispheres
> differ).
>


You're doing the favor of speaking as if Kunich actually
ran a "six point polynomial smoothing" on the data and didn't
pull it out of his ass-hat. I don't know exactly what he
means by that (I know what a six point moving average is,
but would he mean fitting a polynomial to each set of
six points? Fitting a sixth-order polynomial to the
whole dataset? Neither of these is a particularly robust
smoothing strategy.)

The bigger problem is that we all know the climate is
subject to short-term variability. This is why one
needs decades of evidence for warming, not just "The
last 8 years were very hot." Equally so, if the last
8 years seemed to show a plateau, it is premature to
say that global warming has stopped. However, that
it requires cooking the data to see a plateau suggests
that regardless of the temperature, someone's
ears are burning.

Ben
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You're doing the favor of speaking as if Kunich actually
> ran a "six point polynomial smoothing" on the data and didn't
> pull it out of his ass-hat. I don't know exactly what he
> means by that


My guess is that you don't understand just about anything about the problem
nor even why one would apply any filter at all to the data.
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>
> > Next you're going to call me a dumbass for arguing with people on the internet.

>
> Well at least they don't do dope checks at the special olympics.
> .


The result of such tests is a foregone conclusion.

--
Michael Press
 
On Feb 10, 8:23 am, Joe Cipale <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 8:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>
> >>"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> >>news:[email protected]...

>
> >>>On Feb 9, 7:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>
> >>>>So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
> >>>>anthropomorphic global warming.

>
> >>>Your hysterical now. I haven't said a word about what I think on the
> >>>global warming issue. Just on your treatment of the people involved.

>
> >>My mistake, I meant - just like your DOD conspiracy theories.

>
> > Yep, me, the GAO, SFTT, the VFW, the American Legion, people in
> > congress the VA, etc... have all raised lots of these points, but
> > were all obviously communist infiltrated lunatics out to destroy YOUR
> > America.
> > I admit it. I tend to agree with people like SFTT, the veterans
> > groups, people still on active duty I talk with, etc...
> > You are so paranoid you can't seperate legitimate concerns for the
> > troops on the ground from people like Cindy Sheehan.
> > Amerika Uber Alles. Chavez is hyping "The Fatherland" like a ghost of
> > the past. Maybe you can do it here.
> > Never question the leadership, unless they are from another
> > viewpoint, then they are criminal scum.
> > You really need your own little compound in Idaho.
> > Bill C

>
> Bill,
>
> Lets get one thing straight: eunuch is not just paranoid, but a
> knuckle-dragging, right-wing Christo-Fascist who cant see the
> intellectual forest for the trees, no matter how many of them have been
> chopped down for him to see.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I defer
Bill C
 
[email protected] wrote:
> You're doing the favor of speaking as if Kunich actually
> ran a "six point polynomial smoothing" on the data and didn't
> pull it out of his ass-hat.


Well, I was actually sorta hoping he had done it. I was hoping that cuz if
he'd actually done a smooth (even a cherry-picked one) he would've realized
that I took the data exactly as supplied instead of doctoring them as was
his accusation just a few posts upthread. So, if he'd done a smooth but not
admitted that he'd made a false accusation, everyone would have (yet more)
evidence of exactly how much of a **** Tom is. As if anyone needed it.

Besides, he deserves credit for using "Marco Polo sailed to the North Pole"
as a reason to deny global warming. That's better than "the dope was for my
dog."
 
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Correlation doesn't prove causality, but in this case (as in many others)
> we have testable models that do make the effects estimable.


http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/02/he_is_the_very_.html

"While a model can hint at what interventions have the best chance of
reducing pollutant concentrations and exposures, "A lot of people think
models provide predictions," McKone says, "but they don't do this. Models
are not very useful if you don't have something with which to anchor them.
You need observations to confirm the model and move it closer to a
representation of reality."

"The Earth is steadily growing warmer. As all the ice at the two poles melts
a stupendous volume of water will be released.

Fish will swim in Buckingham Palace... New York will be marked by
the...taller skyscrapers as they jut out of the water...the climate..as when
dinosaurs roamed the earth and dense jungles...grew in...Canada.

Palms and alligators would flourish at the poles ...man's food supply will
not ...it is a question if he will survive "
.....................-- The New York Times..May 15, 1932:
 
On Feb 10, 5:33 pm, "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > You're doing the favor of speaking as if Kunich actually
> > ran a "six point polynomial smoothing" on the data and didn't
> > pull it out of his ass-hat.

>
> Well, I was actually sorta hoping he had done it. I was hoping that cuz if
> he'd actually done a smooth (even a cherry-picked one) he would've realized
> that I took the data exactly as supplied instead of doctoring them as was
> his accusation just a few posts upthread. So, if he'd done a smooth but not
> admitted that he'd made a false accusation, everyone would have (yet more)
> evidence of exactly how much of a **** Tom is. As if anyone needed it.
>
> Besides, he deserves credit for using "Marco Polo sailed to the North Pole"
> as a reason to deny global warming. That's better than "the dope was for my
> dog."


I don't think there's a whole lot of doubt when you discuss your area
of expertise who knows what they are talking about.
Unlike Tom, I'm smart enough not to say you have no clue on the
technical aspects of stats & studies, Ilan on mathematics, or Greg
on early American government and principles.
There's **** I, and everyone else will question, from every expert
but only a select few non-professionals will actually argue they are
smarter and better versed than every expert.
Bill C
 
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Besides, he deserves credit for using "Marco Polo sailed to the North
> Pole" as a reason to deny global warming. That's better than "the dope was
> for my dog."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

"This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical
and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated
the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of
physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect."

"Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real,
global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the
tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland:
now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a
Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found
none."

Though I'm quite sure that you're a lot more educated about these things.

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

"When Marco Polo arrived at Kublai Khan's court he became a favorite of the
Khan and was employed for 17 years and was sent on voyages"

http://www.marcopolovoyages.com/LibCongressPapers/GunnarThompson2.html

"Marco says that he traveled to the Far North by compass. He reached a place
where the Pole Star appeared to have a southerly bearing. We can tell from
this statement that he had reached Baffin Island north of Hudson Bay."

For those who don't know where Baffin Island is:
http://encarta.msn.com/map_701510430/Baffin_Island.html you will notice that
they would have had to transverse the northwest passage which has been
frozen in most of our history.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Correlation doesn't prove causality, but in this case (as in many
>> others) we have testable models that do make the effects estimable.

>
> http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/02/he_is_the_very_.html
>
> "While a model can hint at what interventions have the best chance of
> reducing pollutant concentrations and exposures, "A lot of people
> think models provide predictions," McKone says, "but they don't do
> this. Models are not very useful if you don't have something with
> which to anchor them. You need observations to confirm the model and
> move it closer to a representation of reality."


In that quote above, McKone is talking specifically about fate/effects/risk
modeling, not about modeling in general. He is saying chemical fate/effect
models don't make predictions about environmental risk. Here's the full
article:

http://tinyurl.com/2vuu56

What he says is true about modeling in general, but when he says models
don't make predictions he is talking specifically about toxicological
modeling. The subtleties of science aren't your strong suit are they?

But to address your implied claim that GCMs don't get compared to
measurements, here is a brief description of the type of "anchoring" that
climate models undergo:

http://www.ucar.edu/communications/CCSM/accuracy.html

and here's what the IPCC/TAR has to say

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/308.htm

If you want to really start picking at climate models, the wiki entry is
quite good actually:

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

I tried to find some newspaper articles on the subject for you, but
couldn't. I'm kinda limited that way anyway since I mainly read at a
Drabble level.

Why are you so scared about climate change? Like you say, you have enough
money to live the rest of your life in comfort and if it is true, you'll be
dead before the really nasty effects hit. Be like a duck, letting the rain
of the climate change proponents falling on your parade roll off your back
as you float serenely on the pond of indifference.

Quack quack.

--
Bill Asher
 
On Feb 10, 7:24 pm, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

Be like a duck, letting the rain
> of the climate change proponents falling on your parade roll off your back
> as you float serenely on the pond of indifference.
>
> Quack quack.
>
> --
> Bill Asher


That's a damned Heathen philosophy. Pharking Bhuddist. God will get
you for that!
Bill C
 
Tom Kunich wrote:

>
> "Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was
> real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no
> glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking
> farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice
> at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the
> Arctic in 1421 and found none."
>


But it wasn't a global shift in climate, it was regional. Get the
difference? Regional, not global. The idea there was a global warming
during this time has been shown to be false.

Here's an excerpt of the MWP from the TAR:

As with the “Little Ice Age”, the posited “Medieval Warm Period” appears to
have been less distinct, more moderate in amplitude, and somewhat different
in timing at the hemispheric scale than is typically inferred for the
conventionally-defined European epoch. The Northern Hemisphere mean
temperature estimates of Jones et al. (1998), Mann et al. (1999), and
Crowley and Lowery (2000) show temperatures from the 11th to 14th centuries
to be about 0.2°C warmer than those from the 15th to 19th centuries, but
rather below mid-20th century temperatures. The long-term hemispheric trend
is best described as a modest and irregular cooling from AD 1000 to around
1850 to 1900, followed by an abrupt 20th century warming. Regional evidence
is, however, quite variable. Crowley and Lowery (2000) show that western
Greenland exhibited anomalous warmth locally only around AD 1000 (and to a
lesser extent, around AD 1400), with quite cold conditions during the
latter part of the 11th century, while Scandinavian summer temperatures
appeared relatively warm only during the 11th and early 12th centuries.
Crowley and Lowery (2000) find no evidence for warmth in the tropics.
Regional evidence for medieval warmth elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere
is so variable that eastern, yet not western, China appears to have been
warm by 20th century standards from the 9th to 13th centuries. The 12th and
14th centuries appear to have been mainly cold in China (**** et al.,
1998a,b; **** and Gong, 2000). The restricted evidence from the Southern
Hemisphere, e.g., the Tasmanian tree-ring temperature reconstruction of
Cook et al. (1999), shows no evidence for a distinct Medieval Warm Period.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

If you have trouble reading this, I think there's a video of an interpetive
dance on the subject done by the Mark Morris troupe available on YouTube.
It involves pecker-waggling though. Morris is like that.

--
Bill Asher
 
Bill C wrote:

>
> That's a damned Heathen philosophy. Pharking Bhuddist. God will get
> you for that!


I paraphrased that from the tv show "Longstreet" with James Franciscus.

--
Bill Asher
 
On Feb 10, 7:44 pm, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
>
> > That's a damned Heathen philosophy. Pharking Bhuddist. God will get
> > you for that!

>
> I paraphrased that from the tv show "Longstreet" with James Franciscus.
>
> --
> Bill Asher


Wow, that's a flashback.
Who Loves Ya Baby!
Bill C
 
Bill C wrote:

> On Feb 10, 7:44 pm, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Bill C wrote:
>>
>> > That's a damned Heathen philosophy. Pharking Bhuddist. God will get
>> > you for that!

>>
>> I paraphrased that from the tv show "Longstreet" with James
>> Franciscus.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Asher

>
> Wow, that's a flashback.
> Who Loves Ya Baby!


It was probably Bruce Lee, not Franciscus, who uttered that line.

--
Bill Asher
 
On Feb 10, 8:14 pm, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 7:44 pm, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Bill C wrote:

>
> >> > That's a damned Heathen philosophy. Pharking Bhuddist. God will get
> >> > you for that!

>
> >> I paraphrased that from the tv show "Longstreet" with James
> >> Franciscus.

>
> >> --
> >> Bill Asher

>
> > Wow, that's a flashback.
> > Who Loves Ya Baby!

>
> It was probably Bruce Lee, not Franciscus, who uttered that line.
>
> --
> Bill Asher


Now if we only had a "Bronson Rock"
Bill C
 
"William Asher" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> What he says is true about modeling in general, but when he says models
> don't make predictions he is talking specifically about toxicological
> modeling. The subtleties of science aren't your strong suit are they?


Asher, this is my last posting to you since you're an incredible fool. The
way you test the models is to run them on known climatic changes and see if
your models follow what really happened. The modelers have done that and in
fact they DO NOT model what actually happened. As I pointed out several
times here, the models require millions of variables that are unknown so the
overwhelming majority of these variables are simple guesses.

I'd be willing to bet that you don't even understand what method was used to
derived something as abstract as "global average temperature". I've asked
you about that before and you simply ignored it. Good thing I suppose since
the calculations of that are so outstandingly vague that in fact it means
nothing at all. Or to quote yourself, " The subtleties of science aren't
your strong suit are they?"

I think you should get back to trying to convince everyone that although the
artic ice pack was gone, the Alpine glaciers were melted and the entire
southern end of greenland was arable during the Medival Warming that it was
only a local event.

"Why are you so scared about climate change?"

What leads you to believe that I have any fear of climate change? I find you
and your ideas rather funny as a matter of fact. Although I've cited Nancy
Pelosi demanding that the USA set energy reduction limits that would turn
the USA into a third world nation you've refrained from a single comment
regarding that.

When California Governor Schwartzenegger pushes through energy bills that
send still more companies fleeing excessive taxation, it is everyone that is
harmed.

Someone as stupid as yourself believes that words do not have consequences.
You think shouting fire in a crowded building is all just great fun.

But instead you are simply a dupe of a group bent on the destruction of the
USA. You and the others here fit the profile of Useful Idiots with such
precision that it is humorous.