- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Climate Change is a scam designed to pick your pocket.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 6:20 pm to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 9/2/14 at 6:20 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:No need for suspicion. It's laid out right here...
I find it suspicious he doesn't go back further.
quote:
While the HadCRUT4 record clearly shows numerous pauses and dips amid the overall upward trend, the ending hiatus is of particular note because climate models project continuing warming over the period.
quote:Just curious... did CO2 levels decline during that period?
He would have found a 28 year or so "pause" between 45ish and 73ish.
This post was edited on 9/2/14 at 6:23 pm
1
Posted on 9/2/14 at 6:21 pm to bencoleman
quote:Meh, Iosh may be many things. Dumbass is not one of them.
I wasn't talking to you, you dumb frick. How many times does your dumbass have to be told that it is about power, money, and control.
quote:Indeed.
it is about power, money, and control
. . . and science has suffered in its wake.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 6:26 pm to Champagne
Of course it is.
Everybody involved lives off government grants. It's just another means to seize power from the private sector for the govt.
Everybody involved lives off government grants. It's just another means to seize power from the private sector for the govt.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 6:34 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Meh, Iosh may be many things. Dumbass is not one of them.
The frick if he's not, the fact that some of you can't see things for what they are screams dumbass.
quote:
. . . and science has suffered in its wake
This I can agree with.
You can post climate figures and models all day long and it is not going to change the facts. I don't think that any rational person would disagree that there are problems that need to be addressed. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the global warming issue. When are you guys going to be honest and debate the actual issue. I am not going to keep repeating myself nobody is that dense.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 6:39 pm to bencoleman
quote:Just call'em as I see'em, bencoleman.
the fact that some of you can't see things for what they are screams dumbass.
quote:Just call'em as I see'emquote:
. . and science has suffered in its wake
This I can agree with.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 6:43 pm to CptBengal
quote:
I did, and the point is addressed in the paper.
The trend analysis only goes back 30 years.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 6:46 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Unfortunately, the AGW BS has done significant damage to trust of science/scientists
Bullcrap. Scientists have always been distrusted any time they have said "something bad is happening because of something we're doing and we're going to have to change to fix it". Every time.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 6:48 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Just call'em as I see'em, bencoleman.
Me too.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 6:48 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
While the HadCRUT4 record clearly shows numerous pauses and dips amid the overall upward trend, the ending hiatus is of particular note because climate models project continuing warming over the period.
Ah. So he's shown the models have been off recently. That's big news. Does he explain why?
quote:
Just curious... did CO2 levels decline during that period?
You're either lying or a moron.
This post was edited on 9/2/14 at 6:49 pm
Posted on 9/2/14 at 6:49 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:No Spidy, they haven't.
Scientists have always been distrusted any time they have said "something bad is happening because of something we're doing and we're going to have to change to fix it". Every time.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 6:58 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
No Spidy, they haven't.
Henrik Ibsen disagrees.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:19 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Scientists have always been distrusted any time they have said "something bad is happening because of something we're doing and we're going to have to change to fix it". Every time.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:21 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:A playwright???
No Spidy, they haven't.
Henrik Ibsen disagrees.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 7:48 pm to LSURussian
quote:It's amazing, isn't it?
A playwright???
A (1) supposed PhD in Astrophysics quoting a (2) Norwegian playwright as his basis of (3) Climatologists' defense?
Which thing doesn't belong?
Posted on 9/2/14 at 9:36 pm to Iosh
quote:
From a long-term trend standpoint, months are worse than years, especially with no smoothing applied.
I've never heard of a situation where all things being equal, less data is preferable to more data. I mean one of the major components of a time-series data is the seasonal component. Although not all data have seasonal variations, climate data most certain will. If more data becomes problematic, then I would first question the data itself not the amount.
In addition, you keep arguing for smoothing the data using simple, arbitrary methods (i.e., 5 year moving average). Although good for exploratory analyses, there are plenty of other more advanced methods that can identify the trend and other components (e.g., exponential smoothing, seasonal decomposition, ARIMA). Why would you not incorporate more flexible modeling techniques that are less dependent on arbitrary decisions and more dependent on the statistical properties of data? And like all other analyses these methods must test and meet certain assumption (e.g., residual white-noise); these assumptions are important to the interpretation.
My time-series knowledge is pretty limited overall so I won't pretend to know all of the possible techniques; however, you seem to be arguing for less informative data (no seasonal data) based on arbitrary smoothing decisions. Yeah all modeling techniques have assumptions and drawbacks, but there are plenty that have been used for years, empirically and mathematically validated, and can handle complex seasonal and cyclical data (some financial data is modeled by seconds,even miliseconds).
This post was edited on 9/2/14 at 9:43 pm
Posted on 9/2/14 at 9:37 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
however, you seem to be arguing for less informative data (no seasonal data) based on arbitrary smoothing decisions. Yeah all modeling techniques have assumptions and drawbacks, but there are plenty that have been used for years, empirically and mathematically validated, and can handle complex seasonal and cyclical data (some financial data is modeled by seconds,even miliseconds).
the acolytes argue for removal of data because there are large portions of the time series that dont fit their conclusion.
Their solution, ignore it
Posted on 9/2/14 at 9:52 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:That's not an answer.
Just curious... did CO2 levels decline during that period?
---------==
You're either lying or a moron.
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:10 pm to CptBengal
quote:
the acolytes argue for removal of data because there are large portions of the time series that dont fit their conclusion.
Maybe I'm biased because I don't feel like I ever have enough data for my research, but to hear someone advocate for less data is strange to say the least. I mean I understand that there will be diminishing returns at some point and may begin to loss some accuracy (data to the second may be unnecessary), but I will be skeptical when someone argues that more data is bad. I mean some of the principal foundations of probability and statistics are based on the asymptotic properties of n. So if the truth is somewhere in the data, wouldn't more data make it easier to find that truth?
This post was edited on 9/2/14 at 10:14 pm
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:16 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
A (1) supposed PhD in Astrophysics quoting a (2) Norwegian playwright as his basis of (3) Climatologists' defense?
your stupidity - in this case - begins with "as his basis"
Posted on 9/2/14 at 10:16 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
I mean some of the principal foundations of probability and statistics are based on the asymptotic properties of n.
Most of the methods they advocate are decades old. The problem with a lot of these mixed covariance models are the computing power necessary for so many data points. Simple averages and anything were used because they were relatively cheap, computing wise, or even by hand.
With multi thread computing, such constraints don't even exist anymore. Hell, for my own work I'll take as much data as I can get...The more the better. Even down to the second there are patterns that can be handled. Accounting for such cyclical, random, or linear variation on varying temporal scales can only give better results, not worse.
Yet here you have the warming acolytes saying that better modeling is wrong. Not because it is done incorrectly, but because it doesn't give the right conclusion.
That's just bad science. As an old stat prof told me...let the data speak.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News