tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post8623326150424619893..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Unclear On the ConceptEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-28849455599568870492014-03-19T22:00:24.686-04:002014-03-19T22:00:24.686-04:00but models are only as good as the assumptions and...<i>but models are only as good as the assumptions and weightings programmed into them</i><br /><br />Those are generally described as physics and equations of physics. What that has to do with Mann's work is only imagined by your feverish mind. You are flailing around and by doing so publicly you are revealing your profound misunderstandings of science. Mann's data manipulations are in the realm of linear algebra and statistical analysis and most of those equations come in the form of theorems with are rigorously proven results. What you have said so far around here only shows me that you aren't following the math very well, nor even the physics.Thomas Lee Elifritzhttp://cosmic.lifeform.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54559784968592329872014-03-19T20:23:22.607-04:002014-03-19T20:23:22.607-04:00" if you admitted his dishonesty and his data...<em>" if you admitted his dishonesty and his data torturing and his fraudulent methodology, you would not be conceding one inch of ground on whether agw is a valid theory."</em><br /><br />Yeah, sure you believe that...that's why one 15-yr old paper on an obscure topic like dendrochronology is so important to you, because you think it doesn't matter.<br /><br />How ironic that the one clearly correct thing you have said on this thread you have said as a lie! That paper does not matter to the case for AGW, but you do in fact think it does.cobyhttp://scienceblogs.com/illconsiderednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57145845503170699022014-03-18T14:02:31.342-04:002014-03-18T14:02:31.342-04:00I understand that. but models are only as good as...I understand that. but models are only as good as the assumptions and weightings programmed into them and the data they receive. and when the models have a 100% failure rate, it is obvious that they need to be overhauled and redesigned to better understand the phenomenon they are trying to quantify.<br /><br />I find it particularly disgusting that the agw crowd simultaneously claims the science is settled while being hopelessly unable to quantify the science behind climate fluctuations.<br /><br />it smacks of arrogance, insecurity, a lack of understanding of the subject matter and hubris.<br /><br />a little humility would go a long way on the part of the global warming crowd when faced with criticisms of their failures. instead, what generally happens is a lot of bullshit insulting and holier-than-thou crawfishing.<br /><br />mann is a textbook example. it is completely incomprehensible why so many of you need to blindly support his obvious failings. if you admitted his dishonesty and his data torturing and his fraudulent methodology, you would not be conceding one inch of ground on whether agw is a valid theory.<br /><br />just because one bad actor is called to account for his horrible behavior does not destroy the entire industry or the entire concept of agw.<br /><br />in fact, it can strengthen the integrity of the agw work products, by purging the bad actor so he doesn't continue being a distraction from the work being done.rspunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13355847658401064094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80438831975861218172014-03-18T10:15:43.589-04:002014-03-18T10:15:43.589-04:00Richard, models are math based computer programs t...Richard, models are math based computer programs that run on deterministic von Neumann machines.<br /><br />At most they round off numbers. Models, like computer programs and computing machines, are tools for human understanding. Whether you are able to understand or choose to try and understand is totally up to you.Thomas Lee Elifritzhttp://cosmic.lifeform.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-30359501182334919502014-03-18T09:34:19.649-04:002014-03-18T09:34:19.649-04:00I know plenty about it. the problem is, you can&#...I know plenty about it. the problem is, you can't rebut my criticisms, so you have to resort to name-calling instead.<br /><br />"In contrast, the denialist models...oh, wait, you guys don't have models because you don't bother with science."<br /><br />lol, that's a completely ridiculous statement. why should we try to model temperatures, when we know there is naturally unpredictable variance?<br /><br />"Here's a revelation, spunghole, there are no "climate temperature prediction models". There are models of Earth's climate."<br /><br />...that predict temperatures. you are an incredibly stupid person.rspunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13355847658401064094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-36333282970118313802014-03-18T08:57:05.504-04:002014-03-18T08:57:05.504-04:00What I find fascinating about cranks like spung wh...What I find fascinating about cranks like spung who know nothing at all about a subject is that they don't realize that people who do know about it <b>can tell</b>.mknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31298640365784220742014-03-11T10:06:36.517-04:002014-03-11T10:06:36.517-04:00In contrast, the denialist models...oh, wait, you ...In contrast, the denialist models...oh, wait, you guys don't have models because you don't bother with science. <br /><br />Here's a revelation, spunghole, there are no "climate temperature prediction models". There are models of Earth's climate. Come visit our planet come day, and we'll show them to you.a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32892874204150957512014-03-11T04:54:12.756-04:002014-03-11T04:54:12.756-04:00https://twitter.com/USthermophysics/status/4428196...https://twitter.com/USthermophysics/status/442819692013445120/photo/1/large<br /><br />hahahahahaha<br /><br />climate temperature prediction models are hopelessly broken, fictional pieces of bullshit. every year they get further from reality.rspunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13355847658401064094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7683489686906609792014-03-04T12:59:00.328-05:002014-03-04T12:59:00.328-05:00Argh. Travel for a day and things get crazy.
1) W...Argh. Travel for a day and things get crazy.<br />1) Watts @ AGU (with his case labeled W U W T in big letters); although he is Emperor or WUWT, in the real world, AGU scientists don't care, and I guess he was unhappy about that.<br /><br />2) MWP, whatever and whenever it was:<br />a) Was warmer than the post-Roman centuries and the LIA, for which Bill Ruddiman has a pretty good explanation: humans diddled CO2/CH4 to raise it well beyond where it would have been naturally and then drop it ~9ppm (followed by volcanoes and Maunder Minimum, hence LIA ... especially noticeable in areas where snow-albedo feedback might matter, like N. Europe.)<br /><br />b) Every credible reconstruction, including MBH99 has a MWP and LIA, although reconstructions differ in part because one *ought* to get different curves from 30-90degN, 23.5-90degN, NH, NH+SH ... and people don't read the fine print.<br /><br />c) MBH99 and IPCC TAR's use of the graph had a sloping regression line. The cover of Montford's book misrepresented it by drawing it horizontal. I wonder of that was fraudulent or merely total incompetence?<br /><br />d) But, most (pseudoskeptic) dismissives cling to Lamb(1965), i.e., sketch of a tiny fraction of the Earth, caveated in IPCC(1990) and long gone by IPCC(1995). Hence, anyone who says MBH99 made the MWP go away really means:<br />they believe in a sketch from 50 years ago, and no amount of research since that will convince them that that flat-earth map is anything but Eternal Truth.<br /><br />Well, TX is pretty flat, but fortunately, TX has some pretty good scientists who know better :-)<br /><br />3) But, Dunning-Kruger is everywhere. For fun but be polite if you comment, see <a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/R6C1HW1BO90PH/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg11?ie=UTF8&asin=0521767180&cdForum=Fx2DQ5GCYHM4SG8&cdPage=11&cdThread=Tx2CGZWJSOZ2RBS&store=books#wasThisHelpful" rel="nofollow">discussion on Amazon review of Salby's book.</a> That's 100 comments into a bizarre discussion.<br />Briefly, 2 Dunning-Kruger afflictees are appalled at the review, assert Salby's greatness and correctness of all he says. Gavin Cawley (@ UEA and well-published, see Google Scholar) patiently tries to lead them through a reasoned analysis. They squirm, issue insults, including to Gavin's mustache,<br /><br />One writes a polemic, then edits most of it away, not realizing that anyone who followed it would have gotten an email copy. The other (who has mostly reviewed DVDs @ Amazon) posts his (not overly-strong on relevant science) college transcript and says he will not debate with anyone who doesn't post their transcripts.<br />Neither seems to have Googled Salby lately. :-)John masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35104437126788923822014-03-04T08:14:52.408-05:002014-03-04T08:14:52.408-05:00rspung - yes, the *paper* is accurate - in fact I ...rspung - yes, the *paper* is accurate - in fact I linked to it (more than either you or the CO2 Science site did, perhaps because I actually read it). The interpretation of it - by you and the CO2 Science website - is inaccurate.<br /><br />The thesis of a global MWP is not supported by one spike at 900 AD followed by decreasing temperatures for several centuries. As I pointed out some sources don't even *start* the MWP until 950 AD. For those using the wikipedia definition the 900 AD spike isn't even relevant.<br /><br />One paper out of one. CO2S (and you by proxy) are batting 1000 in the disinformation game. Do you want me to pick another? What do you think the odds are I'll find the same game being played. I'm guessing the probability is 100%.<br /><br />Overlay the CET graph for the MWP and the Coldair Cave graph and tell me the correlation.Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21341142003955468712014-03-04T06:52:10.798-05:002014-03-04T06:52:10.798-05:00Anona0191a gere:
unsprung says "and to top i...Anona0191a gere:<br /><br />unsprung says "and to top it off, you're mad because a study done in south Africa didn't confirm the mwp was global"<br /><br />Uh, you seem to be the one with a problem that the MWP wasn't found global, dearie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60108497155365199062014-03-04T06:49:55.012-05:002014-03-04T06:49:55.012-05:00Anon-101a here:
""They used more recent...Anon-101a here:<br /><br />""They used more recent graphs that show the same thing"<br /><br />impossible."<br /><br />Nope, it's true. just because you wish to believe it's impossible for the MWP to be smaller than the current warming and that it's only "possible" to disprove MBH98/99 doesn't mean reality agrees with your demands.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-59155930908322938842014-03-04T06:47:34.708-05:002014-03-04T06:47:34.708-05:00Anon-101a here:
"lol, 900 ad is not outside ...Anon-101a here:<br /><br />"lol, 900 ad is not outside the mwp"<br /><br />Since that must be a reading of this statement<br /><br />"I see a peak of about 2.5C around 900 AD"<br /><br />From a misunderstanding of the English language, I think you deserve a LOL here.<br /><br />"that's the weakest attempt at debunking I've ever seen"<br /><br />Because he didn't link to a blogroll but the actual papers supposedly (but not in actuality) included in the co2science fraudulent proposition?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88601128970138965582014-03-04T06:44:42.411-05:002014-03-04T06:44:42.411-05:00Anon-101a here:
"only a fool issues an accus...Anon-101a here:<br /><br />"only a fool issues an accusation before he knows the facts."<br /><br />So when you've found and understood the facts, come back to us, eh?<br /><br />"mann's hockey stick claims the mwp and lia did not exist world-wide."<br /><br />Well, since the fact is that this is a complete lie, you need to wait until you come back with the facts.<br /><br />"the mwp has been thoroughly documented in Europe, North and South America, Africa, Australia, Antarctica and Asia."<br /><br />At the same time?<br /><br />No.<br /><br />Please learn the facts.<br /><br />"I tell nothing but the truth and I back up everything I say with hard evidence."<br /><br />Nope, you parrot what you've been told by liars is the truth and you've credulously believed every word of it. Your hard evidence would require a link to the original sources, NOT to a blogroll co2science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43662505926860467752014-03-03T18:49:14.938-05:002014-03-03T18:49:14.938-05:00Watts attended this year as a member of the press....Watts attended this year as a member of the press. The AGU comped him. He was not grateful. - EliEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-41823690259284965802014-03-03T18:02:22.557-05:002014-03-03T18:02:22.557-05:00You've totally convinced me, carbon dioxide is...You've totally convinced me, carbon dioxide is not an infrared active greenhouse gas. So pass the koolaide and crackers, cudos all around.Thomas Lee Elifritzhttp://cosmic.lifeform.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23929892614036823392014-03-03T17:48:50.903-05:002014-03-03T17:48:50.903-05:00lol, 900 ad is not outside the mwp. you just admi...lol, 900 ad is not outside the mwp. you just admitted it. and the temperatures fluctuated during the mwp just like they did during every several hundred year time frame.<br /><br />and you're mad because they labeled a peak at 900 ad as occurring during the mwp, even while you admit the mwp started right around that time?<br /><br />that's the weakest attempt at debunking I've ever seen. you took one paper out of hundreds, admitted it was accurate and used it to claim... what?<br /><br />somethingsomethingsomething???<br /><br />and then you accuse me of failing, because you found something that confirms what I said.<br /><br />and to top it off, you're mad because a study done in south Africa didn't confirm the mwp was global. well, duh. the papers are grouped according to where their geographical subject area was. their totality confirms the mwp was a period when temps equal to, or higher than, today occurred all over the globe.<br />rspunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13355847658401064094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-78477891422404358292014-03-03T17:15:47.099-05:002014-03-03T17:15:47.099-05:00rspung says: "only a fool issues an accusatio...rspung says: "only a fool issues an accusation before he knows the facts."<br /><br />Then gives us this link: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php<br /><br />Obviously rspung doesn't follow his own advice - only a fool would believe anything on the CO2 Science site. I followed one branch of this denialist cesspool <a href="http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_coldaircave.php" rel="nofollow">Cold Air Cave, Makapansgat Valley, South Africa</a>, it's the typical twisting of words, handwaving, taking valid science and abusing (some might say torturing) the evidence.<br /><br />For instance we are told: "<i>Peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period was as much as 2.5°C warmer than the Current Warm Period (AD 1961-1990 mean).</i> Yeah, I see a peak of about 2.5C around 900 AD, but by many reckonings that's actually *outside* the timeframe for the MWP. On the otherhand, I see a dip around 1100 AD that's *below* the 1961-1990 mean - and 1100 AD is by every reckoning I've seen during the MWP. <br /><br />Oh, BTW - that graph *is not* from <a href="http://reference.sabinet.co.za/webx/access/electronic_journals/sajsci/sajsci_v97_n1_a12.pdf" rel="nofollow">the actual paper</a>. It's another of the infamous 'based on' graphs. Notice how they write MWP right above the 900 AD peak. Hmmm, but wasn't the MWP from 950 to 1250 AD (wikipedia), or 900 to 1300 (Mann) or a range of some??? years. Why didn't they write MWP above the 1100 AD dip?? An attempt to confuse, mislead, or otherwise shade the truth?? No, tell me it ain't so.<br /><br />What the data on this chart shows is that temperatures widely varied at this location over the several centuries collectively known as the MWP. It does not support a thesis that the MWP was global in nature.<br /><br />Nice fail rspung. Next time you ought to check the facts before sending us on a wild goose chase.Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87446547687532865592014-03-03T17:08:22.483-05:002014-03-03T17:08:22.483-05:00Uh, dude, they all took place during the mwp. Own...Uh, dude, they all took place during the mwp. Own goooooooooooooooal!!!!rspunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13355847658401064094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27874933393605011942014-03-03T17:03:45.208-05:002014-03-03T17:03:45.208-05:00Rspung, Uh, dude, look at some of those papers--th...Rspung, Uh, dude, look at some of those papers--the times of warming are not contemporaneous. So no, the MWP was not global. Own goooooooaaaaaallllll!a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31259977169556906982014-03-03T16:14:48.633-05:002014-03-03T16:14:48.633-05:00Er ... it's a graph. A visual expression and r...Er ... it's a graph. A visual expression and representation of the data. I'm not aware it made any claims, that would require it to be some kind of animated being. In fact I'm pretty sure these kinds of things are presented to allow you to make your own interpretation, which you certainly have in this case.Thomas Lee Elifritzhttp://cosmic.lifeform.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-26319210522215361372014-03-03T16:03:54.164-05:002014-03-03T16:03:54.164-05:00only a fool issues an accusation before he knows t...only a fool issues an accusation before he knows the facts.<br /><br /> mann's hockey stick claims the mwp and lia did not exist world-wide. hundreds of papers prove the mwp DID exist world-wide. a depository of some, but not all, papers is here:<br /><br />http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php<br /><br />the mwp has been thoroughly documented in Europe, North and South America, Africa, Australia, Antarctica and Asia.<br /><br />in other words, on every continent. I tell nothing but the truth and I back up everything I say with hard evidence. the only liars here are people like you who spew garbage without bothering to do any research.rspunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13355847658401064094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49269268767670430382014-03-03T15:59:08.362-05:002014-03-03T15:59:08.362-05:00Oh my! Well good luck with your quest, I'm sur...Oh my! Well good luck with your quest, I'm sure you will garner many fans. Probably not too many bunnies, but that's your problem isn't it.Thomas Lee Elifritzhttp://cosmic.lifeform.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-28098657294419312262014-03-03T15:48:40.990-05:002014-03-03T15:48:40.990-05:00rspung tells nothing but lies:
"hundreds of ...rspung tells nothing but lies:<br /><br /><i>"hundreds of peer-reviewed, published papers dispute his hockey stick work"</i><br /><br />Prove me wrong, list a few of these papers so we can critique them.Ian Forresternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-51393429865696602062014-03-03T15:33:20.586-05:002014-03-03T15:33:20.586-05:00I said I was done with YOU.I said I was done with YOU.rspunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13355847658401064094noreply@blogger.com