0
   

Global Warming Math produces hockeystick figure from red noi

 
 
Reply Thu 27 Jan, 2005 10:00 pm
This study should end the discussion of "Global Warming":

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

Quote:


....The articles show what appears to be a serious computer programming error in the original calculations, affecting a step called principal component analysis (PCA). We showed that the PCA method as used by Mann et al. effectively mines a data set for hockey stick patterns. Even from meaningless random data (red noise), it nearly always produces a hockey stick. Professor Hans von Storch, an IPCC Contributing Author and internationally-renowned expert in climate statistics at the Center for Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany, is quoted as saying that our criticism on this point is "entirely valid." Dr Mia Hubert, a statistician at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium, examined the materials at the request of NWT and agreed with our conclusions, saying: "Tree rings with a hockey stick shape dominate the PCA with this method."

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/4sticks.gif

The figure above shows 3 simulated PC1s generated by feeding random numbers (red noise) into the Mann et al. algorithm, as well as the MBH98 reconstruction: can you pick out the reconstruction?

..........

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,756 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Thu 27 Jan, 2005 11:17 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Scientists are in near universal agreement that global warming is a fact.



http://www.flattire.org/pics/2003/070903_bullshit.jpg
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 05:08 am
EBrown_p had posted a reply to this one and then, apparently, thought better of it.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 12:10 pm
I find it interesting how you cited an article that was not published by climate experts but by one person who worked for a mining industry (let's face it, mineral exploration equals mining because most minerals I can think of are underground) and one economics expert.

So, you insist that global warming is not a fact?

Fair enough, but what I want to know is what other evidence do you have to support that global warming is absolute BS. After all, you've only cited one piece of evidence.

If I were to do the same for my argument, you'd say... So what? What other evidence do you have to support your argument?

What else I find frustrating (something that has nothing to do with you) is the fact that you chose a paper that is arguing against a paper published in Nature. the one terrible thing about the Nature Publishing Group is that I don't have access to any of their e-journal copies.

Grr...
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 12:35 pm
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

So, you insist that global warming is not a fact?

Fair enough, but what I want to know is what other evidence do you have to support that global warming is absolute BS. After all, you've only cited one piece of evidence.



You've misunderstood the claim in question.

For all I know, global warming might be a fact; the thing which IS BS is the idea that MAN might be causing global warming.

I say again, get onto google and look up the term 'hipsothermal' Turns out there was an age about 5000 - 8000 years back if memory serves when the planet was a good deal warmer than it is now with no petroleum technology or human use of hydrofleurocarbons in sight at all.
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 01:05 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

So, you insist that global warming is not a fact?

Fair enough, but what I want to know is what other evidence do you have to support that global warming is absolute BS. After all, you've only cited one piece of evidence.



You've misunderstood the claim in question.

For all I know, global warming might be a fact; the thing which IS BS is the idea that MAN might be causing global warming.

I say again, get onto google and look up the term 'hipsothermal' Turns out there was an age about 5000 - 8000 years back if memory serves when the planet was a good deal warmer than it is now with no petroleum technology or human use of hydrofleurocarbons in sight at all.


Actually the claim made by the article you cite is that global warming (not the human causation thereof) is unsubstantiated. (actually it doesn't quite stretch that far, it is only attacking a particular method of mapping data.)
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2005 01:07 pm
That's picking nits. The other poster asked me what other evidence I had for the idea of global warming being BS and I answered him.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Feb, 2005 05:22 am
gungasnake wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

So, you insist that global warming is not a fact?

Fair enough, but what I want to know is what other evidence do you have to support that global warming is absolute BS. After all, you've only cited one piece of evidence.



You've misunderstood the claim in question.

For all I know, global warming might be a fact; the thing which IS BS is the idea that MAN might be causing global warming.

I say again, get onto google and look up the term 'hipsothermal' Turns out there was an age about 5000 - 8000 years back if memory serves when the planet was a good deal warmer than it is now with no petroleum technology or human use of hydrofleurocarbons in sight at all.


Okay, and why was that exactly?

The Earth goes in cycles of cooling and warming, if I remember my geography correctly, naturally. We are pumping out carbon dioxide faster than the oceans can absorb it and faster than the rain forests can absorb it. Would that not increase the severity of global warming?

Ah, but I'm not the right person to consult over these things. I'm not a geophysicist.
0 Replies
 
neil
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Feb, 2005 03:24 pm
Spring comes a month earlier here in NE Florida, than it did 1975 though 1990. Winter lows are also warmer by about 2.5 degrees c = 4.5 degrees f, Otherwise there has been little change since 1975, when we moved to Florida. Simular clues of global warming are reported from many locations. Some, but not half are lies. I think it is time to admit global warming is in progress and that humans play a tiny role. That humans contributed more than 1% to the carbon dioxide or more than 1% to the warming is still a fair debate in my opinion. That spending ten trillion dollars, annually, world wide (directly and indirectly) will slow global warming significantly is also debatable. There is also a reasonable possibility that new ice age will begin in 2006, even though the planet's humans have done almost nothing so far to stop global warming. Please give details of the plan you recommend to slow global warming. I have made several suggestions on this forum. We should be considering contingency plans even if we think none will be needed this decade. Neil
0 Replies
 
Allsixkindsamusic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Feb, 2005 09:54 am
Global Warming
Neil said that the planet's humans have done almost nothing so far to stop global warming.

Then why did he say that there is a reasonable possibility that new ice age will begin in 2006? Next year? Don't gasp at this breathtaking leap of second-hand religion; it is very common.

The surface of this huge ball of water, molten rock and assorted carbon-based life-forms does warm up and cool down; there's nothing much we can do. We produce lots of CO2; but nothing like that coming from, for instance, countless undersea volcanoes along with Pinetubo, Etna and several in Aloha-land. There is nothing we can do about plate-tectonics, earthquakes and tsunami. It seems also that there is nothing we can do about verbal pollution.

We are bombarded with delusion and manipulation: if you think that people like WWF, Greenpeace and The Greens are really on the up-and-up, that they're telling you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, please see http://www.ipa.org.au/files/greenpolicies.pdf, and other articles on the site.

Green-ness has become the modern religion; it is as fundamentalist and fanatic, and ejeculates the same not-very-truthful dogma for the unthinking person to swallow whole, as all the other religions: questioning hard dogma is blasphemy. It is an unfortunate fact that humans are chronically incapable of telling the truth. Politicians and their peers used-car salesmen are the worst twisters.

Sounds like I've got my knickers in a knot? Apply a modicum of logic and analysis like at http://www.cis.org.au/Events/CISlectures/2004/Marohasy120504.htm

To me, the worst pollution on this, the third rock out, is political lies. Reds do it (Stalin, US Democrats), blues do it (Emperor Bush II, Australia's John Howard), even educated Greens do it: and if you dig enough you'll find that Poles and Ukrainians and British and everyone else do it too: WMD and "sex-within-marriage-only" are just two.

Americans, please look at what the rest of the world thinks: http://www.cis.org.au/Events/CISlectures/2002/Harries030402.htm is but one man's opinion.

STOP PRESS: today's (the day before Valentine's Day) New York Times described US operatives (yes, freedom-loving Americans) kidnapping "suspects" in the US and flying them to third-world countries for "investigation".

As the big 1950s signs said, THIMK about it!
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Feb, 2005 10:37 am
Re: Global Warming
Allsixkindsamusic wrote:


The surface of this huge ball of water, molten rock and assorted carbon-based life-forms does warm up and cool down; there's nothing much we can do. We produce lots of CO2; but nothing like that coming from, for instance, countless undersea volcanoes along with Pinetubo, Etna and several in Aloha-land. There is nothing we can do about plate-tectonics, earthquakes and tsunami. It seems also that there is nothing we can do about verbal pollution.



There IS something we HAVE to do about water...

The planet gets these hotter and colder cycles and the last really hot cycle was called "hipsothermal", which you can look up, about 6000 years ago or thereabouts, i.e. roughly corresponding with the so-called "golden age" of classical mythology.

Now, the reason this time was called a "golden age" instead of the time when everybody drowned, as it would be called today were such a thing to happen, is that there simply was not as much water on the planet then, i.e. that was before the great flood.

We have to figure a way to get some of the flood waters off the planet before any other such age occurs.
0 Replies
 
Allsixkindsamusic
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Feb, 2005 02:28 pm
Yes it was all Noah's fault for building a boat that the Coast Guard wouldn't pass as sea-worthy. Therefore I suggest we embark on a new Green campaign: everyone in the world must emulate The Goons (BBC 1950s; Secomb, Sellers and Milligan) and drink the lake dry.

Well, the rest of the tree-hugger schemes make just as much sense: http://www.ipa.org.au/files/Carter2004_CLIMATEBROCHURE.pdf and http://www.ipa.org.au/news/print_news.asp?newsid=832.

From the latter:

Quote:
Australian Financial Review Tuesday, September 21, 2004.
John Quiggan claims that the Greens are not 'irrational kooks' but 'are defending rational, evidence-based policies against populism and pork-barrelling'.
We beg to differ. Wherever you look with the Greens economic policies you see school kid posturing and trendy, wealth-sapping strategies.


I have already quoted Marohasy on "environmental fundamentalism", on the CIS site.

The "hip-warm age" Gungasnake mentions coincides with deMeo's Saharasia at http://www.orgonelab.org/saharasia.htm.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 10:00 am
Main thing I'm saying is we have to keep the questions of whether there might actually be global warming and whether humans CAUSE it separate.

If there IS global warming, we could easily end up having to deal with the effects of it.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2005 10:02 am
Thanks for the green urls. Very useful.
0 Replies
 
Allsixkindsamusic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 08:10 am
Ideological = NOT-Logical
Gungasnake you have hit the nail dead-centre:
Quote:
...we have to keep the questions of whether there might actually be global warming and whether humans CAUSE it separate.


The NY Times today declares that environmentalism is dead because the tree-huggers got too alarmist, have been shown to be crying wolf: so much so that opposition has bit their arses - the Alaska oil-drilling project looks like going ahead.

Lying causes even Judges to stop believing you. Anyone who embraces similar undigested, ideological opinions soon fall victim to their own words. It is a process dubbed Rissonism: the harder you swim the deeper you sink into the pooh; two steps forward put you three backward, sort of thing: people just don't trust you any more. Usually after the damage is done; pious hypocricy is very destructive. It's named after an Australia pollie who wanted the right thing, but did it all so wrong he failled in a big way.

Remember that guy who "bonsaied" kittens by letting them grow inside a glass form? He left apertures for the kitten to feed and breathe; and another for waste-elimination. We are bonsaied within a thin film of breathable air, but we don't have a workable means of waste-elimination.

We are shitting all over inside our own nest, poisoning this ball of stellar debris. But take heart: in a geological blink-of-an-eye it will all be pristine again. To achieve this, all trace of human-kind must be erased.

In a million years or so, the missile silos of Nevada and Kamchatka will be so much decayed rock; The Middle East will again be a Garden of Eden; and to whatever intelligent beings remain the word BUSH will be a natural assemblage of vegetation -- please let that last bit happen real soon!!! Laughing

By then, Woomera, Mururoa, Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl will be sources of curious glassy stuff good for making knives and arrow-heads; and the Baikal seals will have stopped growing two heads.

In the meantime we must run this place on logic not ideology: Arthur C Clarke described his ideal society of a thousand years hence in Odessy IV: 3001: we have the technology to do it, if and only if we give up the religio/political chicanery that's going on now in Washington, Brussels, Riadh, Moscow and Beijing.

About the only way we could run it on logic is to have a computer-governed world: OMG, then we'd have to elect a Chief Programmer!!

I think we should add Delhi to that list.

More "pious hypocracy": what the State of Colorado is doing to Professor Wade Churchill. All Churchill did was exercise his First Amendment right to say what he thought. A much older Churchill said:

Quote:
Some people's idea of (free speech) is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.


He also said:

Quote:
Do not criticize your government when out of the country. Never cease to do so when at home.
0 Replies
 
Allsixkindsamusic
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 10:12 am
Ahh The Golden Age, when man started to think about more than just what's in, and just below, his belly. Six thousand years ago matches DeMeo's Saharasia; and if you look into said gilt period you'll see that that's when things started to get tough for wimmin.

In my view, putting men in charge was the biggest mistake humankind ever made.

I'm male (what woman'd choose a rocket-arsed dog as avatar, or drive a Land Rover the way it was designed to be driven?) and I absolutely adore wimmin; I reckon the sun shines from my lady's fundamental. But wimmin are having a bit of a slog at the moment; it's been tough times for the slender sex the last few milennia.

Less than a century ago wimmin chained themselves to railings: that got them the vote. Much later they started bra-burning, then someone invented The Pill, and got them to enjoy sex. I was in my early 20s then, enough said.

It took a lot of hard work and hard politics but the law got changed: the Equal Rights Amendment has not been acepted by the religious people, not by a long shot. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The effluent hit the fan last month when we were told that there may be mathematical differences as well as sexual ones ... That weak-kneed Harvardian actually licked donkey, apologised for pointing out the obvious: wimmin are different from men. Viva that difference!!

Half the problem with global warming is the incredible volume of hot gasses generated in this Equal Rights hoo-ha. It's a catch-a-greased-pig game - let the youngsters roll about in the mud if they want while we sit back and laugh; grimance as we remember our youth.

Wimmin have babies, that's the way God designed them. Men just can not get pregnant and give birth - God divided the equipment: did someone suggest a partnership? But we are bigger, tougher, faster and have more stamina than the child-bearers. Unfortunately we waste all out intelligence being macho: human life and love is a symbiosis, neither can survive without t'other.

We're good at bringing home the bacon and we can cook it if we want to: wimmin have their incredible memory for family facts and prefer to dig the garden rather than chase-down dinner. It's a balancing act: he defends a warm secure place and provides the meat, she concentrates on kids and cave. Sometimes she's better at bacon-bringing and he prefers home-n-hearth - each to his own.

By the time we liberated most of humankind from the need just to survive, wimmin had already been ground down; in too many places they still are. This grinding business got everything out of balance, and gave us today's prejudices, sky-castles and assorted bu115h1t. The Europeans are a lot better at it than the Yanks; who are streets ahead of the politically-unmentionable "others".

We men have a choice: we admit that in many ways wimmin are just that much smarter than we are, far smarter than in some of our most revered philosophers and leaders' worst nightmares. Some call it the power of the pussy: I call it a damn smart move, Lady!

Or we continue this pointlessness, the hot-air-factories and downright idiocy we have now.

I think the trouble is that religion really is Marx's opiate of the people, and that it's got all the men tripping off; can't think straight.

Maybe the Yanks aught to let Hillary have a go, eh?

Or even Martha...
0 Replies
 
neil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Mar, 2005 01:16 pm
Hi allsix: I'm also unhappy that a lot of lies, half truths and false inferences are being told by all sides of the global warming debate. My best guess is global warming has occurred most of the past century especially the last 1/3 of the 20 th century. Spring came earlier this year to North-East Florida than most previous years, but that does not prove a world wide trend.
There are lots of things we can do about it, but most are incredibly costly, have low yield and horrible side effects. We should try to identify the least painful actions we can take, but hesitate to take most of them, due to the possibility of new ice age soon. We should also plan what might be done about a new ice age. This is called contingency planning. Some pilot programs are needed to avoid nasty surprises, when and if, we decide we should take large scale action. Neil
0 Replies
 
chiczaira
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 01:24 pm
Climate changes says Professor Lindner of MIT- the famous Climatologist.
Is an Ice Age coming? I think it was predicted as recently as 1970.

Will there be global warming? At present there has been no more than one degree C of warming in the last hundred years and even that is not corroborated by NASA instruments.

It is interesting to note that long before the invention of the steam engine or polluting factories, the Vikings cultivated what is now Greenland and Iceland--800-1200 AD.

Alas. a cooling period followed which ruined English farming.

All that before the smokestacks.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Apr, 2005 11:09 pm
Re: Global Warming
Allsixkindsamusic wrote:
Neil said that the planet's humans have done almost nothing so far to stop global warming.


That's only fair; they've done nothing to cause it.
0 Replies
 
Red888
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 May, 2005 11:29 am
All very interesting and rather confusing to tell you the truth. My level of geography is nowhere near as complex as this but It made for a good read. Thank you.


Ta for the links Allsixkindsamusic
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Global Warming Math produces hockeystick figure from red noi
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/07/2020 at 03:24:28