Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of

# Global Waming Scam Exposed As A Sham

245 replies to this topic

### #196 Doug1o29

Doug1o29

Majestic 12 Operative

• Member
• 6,491 posts
• Joined:01 Aug 2007
• Gender:Male
• Location:oklahoma

Posted 25 March 2013 - 01:52 PM

Little Fish, on 24 March 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

Cornelius asserted without evidence:
"there has been a consistent rise in temperature over the last 15years" when a statistically meaningful analysis is carried out."
can you show a statistical meaningful analysis showing the temperature trend consistently rising over the last 15 years.
Several months ago we were talking about an article from Watts' site that said there had been no change in the last seventeen years.  At that time I ran an analysis for the years 1996-2011 (sixteen years).  Sixteen years because the data for 2012 wasn't in yet.  The results:

At 95% confidence, the temperature rose at an average rate of 0.012853 degrees per year.  That's a trend line.  The straight-line model accounted for 36.6% of the variation and produced an F-value of 8.07 with 1 and 14 degrees of freedom.  Probability of the trend line actually being flat:  1.31%.  That's significant.

But, any analysis of current temperature trends that is less than 30 years long is cherry-picking.  In climatology you don't get to pick the interval; 30 years is the specified minimum length of a trend line.  The 30-year line (1983 to 2012) produced these results:

At 95% confidence, the temperature rose at an average rate of 0.016754 degrees per year.  That, too, is a trend line.  The model accounted for 72.6% of the variation and produced an F-value of 74.04 with 1 and 28 degrees of freedom.  Probability of the trend line being flat is less than 1 in 10,000 (The program won't calculate a number that small.).

There is too much variability during the last 15 years (1998 to 2012) to calculate a trend line.  This means that Little Fish's argument boils down to:  "At 95% confidence, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that temperature is changing, so that proves it isn't."  Does anybody see the logical problem here?

Because the 1996 to 2011 model accounts for more variation, it is a better description of reality.  But because the 1983 model does a job several times better, it is an even better description of reality.

The argument about whether the temperature trend has changed in the last fifteen years is couched in a partial truth, no matter which side of it you're on.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 25 March 2013 - 01:56 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

### #197 Doug1o29

Doug1o29

Majestic 12 Operative

• Member
• 6,491 posts
• Joined:01 Aug 2007
• Gender:Male
• Location:oklahoma

Posted 25 March 2013 - 02:36 PM

danielost, on 25 March 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

With out the climate models your just plucking numbers out of the air.  Of course that is all your side is doing anyways.
I believe what you are referring to is computer-based climate simulation models.  I don't use them.  I do regression modelling (Think:  statistics.).  I use computers, but only to do the arithmetic.

I started to write a detailed description of how I would go about extracting a temperature signal from tree-ring data, then realized it was going to take pages and nobody would understand it anyway.  But what I start with are measured tree ring widths.  I do some processing to remove known effects, such as tree age, storm and drought effects, competition effects and distortions caused by unequal growth rates in different trees.  What comes out is a signal, a wiggly line.  I then match that to a temperature record for the area and use the estimated ring thickness to calculate the temperature at the time the ring was laid down.

Each step is governed by strict procedural rules and I have people looking over my shoulder to be sure I get it right (And that's BEFORE peer review.).  Numbers used in the process come either from measurements or from mathematical formulae.  I don't get to arbitrarily pick one out of the air (a "magic number").

Climate science uses a lot of things besides computer models.  If you want to know how hot it will be when CO2 levels reach 350ppmbv, look at the geologic record and see how hot it was last time.  No modelling there, just paleology.  Or use sediment cores, ice cores or stomatal counts on leaves from museum collections.  All provide climate data without the use of climate models.

Also, there are over 300 climate models.  Some have become obsolete and are no longer in use (These are the ones the deniers like to scream about - the ones that were discarded because they didn't work.).  Some apply only in selected areas or under selected conditions (Using them out of prescription is another denier tactic.).  When used as intended, climate models produce reasonable, if not perfect results.  In this case, "reasonable" means accuracy rates of around 30%.

And even if the models aren't all that accurate, what do you do when all 300 say the same thing?  In that case, I'd pay attention.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

### #198 Doug1o29

Doug1o29

Majestic 12 Operative

• Member
• 6,491 posts
• Joined:01 Aug 2007
• Gender:Male
• Location:oklahoma

Posted 25 March 2013 - 02:53 PM

Little Fish, on 24 March 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

a warmer planet will produce more evaporation and more rain, so co2 will wash out of the air faster.
I don't know what sink you are referring to, i'm guessing you are talking about trees. i'm all for more trees.
Forests actually store more carbon in the form of fungi and microbes in the soil than in the form of wood; though, an old-growth Douglas-fir stand can have two to three million tons per hectare.  Forests sequester carbon as long as they continue to grow, but eventually they reach a steady-state and will absorb no more.  This is one of the fallacies of the cap-and-trade system:  after a certain point, it quits working.  But new plantings on abandoned farm land will help.

We can turn fields into carbon sinks with proper agricultural techniques.  The US is set up to do this under the Farm Bill (Renewal currently stalled in Congress).  In just two or three years we could have them in use on most farm lands in the country.  What we lack is the political backbone to do it.

Most of the world's people cook with wood (or charcoal).  This not only removes stored carbon in the form of wood, but it also reduces soil carbon.  More efficient cook stoves would reduce the need for wood fuel.

Those are the big ussues with forests.  The only real solution, though, is to cut emissions.  And wind power is cheaper than gas, coal or oil and mcuh more available than wood.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

### #199 danielost

danielost

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 30,346 posts
• Joined:26 Nov 2007
• Gender:Male
• Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 25 March 2013 - 03:10 PM

Br Cornelius, on 25 March 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

How so ?
Applying standard methodologies to assess trends is what I am doing.

Br Cornelius

No' what you are doing is trying to find a question to the answer you already have.  "Man made global warming"
Anything that doesn't give you the answer you want is wrong.  The samething with people who say there is no global warming at all.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

### #200 danielost

danielost

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 30,346 posts
• Joined:26 Nov 2007
• Gender:Male
• Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 25 March 2013 - 03:15 PM

Doug1o29, on 25 March 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

I believe what you are referring to is computer-based climate simulation models.  I don't use them.  I do regression modelling (Think:  statistics.).  I use computers, but only to do the arithmetic.

I started to write a detailed description of how I would go about extracting a temperature signal from tree-ring data, then realized it was going to take pages and nobody would understand it anyway.  But what I start with are measured tree ring widths.  I do some processing to remove known effects, such as tree age, storm and drought effects, competition effects and distortions caused by unequal growth rates in different trees.  What comes out is a signal, a wiggly line.  I then match that to a temperature record for the area and use the estimated ring thickness to calculate the temperature at the time the ring was laid down.

Each step is governed by strict procedural rules and I have people looking over my shoulder to be sure I get it right (And that's BEFORE peer review.).  Numbers used in the process come either from measurements or from mathematical formulae.  I don't get to arbitrarily pick one out of the air (a "magic number").

Climate science uses a lot of things besides computer models.  If you want to know how hot it will be when CO2 levels reach 350ppmbv, look at the geologic record and see how hot it was last time.  No modelling there, just paleology.  Or use sediment cores, ice cores or stomatal counts on leaves from museum collections.  All provide climate data without the use of climate models.

Also, there are over 300 climate models.  Some have become obsolete and are no longer in use (These are the ones the deniers like to scream about - the ones that were discarded because they didn't work.).  Some apply only in selected areas or under selected conditions (Using them out of prescription is another denier tactic.).  When used as intended, climate models produce reasonable, if not perfect results.  In this case, "reasonable" means accuracy rates of around 30%.

And even if the models aren't all that accurate, what do you do when all 300 say the same thing?  In that case, I'd pay attention.
Doug

Your making your own model.  Which is fine if your not pulling numbers out of the are, or ignoring some of the facts. To make your model.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

### #201 danielost

danielost

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 30,346 posts
• Joined:26 Nov 2007
• Gender:Male
• Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 25 March 2013 - 03:18 PM

Two years ago, climate scientist came out with cow farts were bad for the environment.  About a week later they changed that to american cows were bad, and chinese cows were good for the environment.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

### #202 Frank Merton

Frank Merton

Blue fish

• Member
• 14,402 posts
• Joined:22 Jan 2013
• Gender:Male
• Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

• fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 25 March 2013 - 03:24 PM

There's a lot more people that cows; should we stop farting?

### #203 Doug1o29

Doug1o29

Majestic 12 Operative

• Member
• 6,491 posts
• Joined:01 Aug 2007
• Gender:Male
• Location:oklahoma

Posted 25 March 2013 - 03:43 PM

danielost, on 25 March 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

Two years ago, climate scientist came out with cow farts were bad for the environment.  About a week later they changed that to american cows were bad, and chinese cows were good for the environment.
You just heard that one?  It was at least nine years ago and it all started with a flippant comment by a minor bureaucrat in the EPA who made the comment in a report, thinking he was being funny.  The Sierra Club, or another of those left-wing ecofreak groups, got ahold of it and filed suit because the EPA hadn't followed up on it.  To settle the suit, the EPA did a study which led to some unfortunate cows wearing devices to measure their "emissions."  The study found that there was no significant effect, but the SC didn't buy it and filed another suit.  The EPA commissioned another study that found there was an effect.  And that led to a third study to break the tie.  At any rate, many studies later, the consensus is that cow "emissions" are a minor problem and that feed lots are a bigger one.
Doug

Frank Merton, on 25 March 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

There's a lot more people that cows; should we stop farting?
Just stop eating beans.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

### #204 Little Fish

Little Fish

Government Agent

• Member
• 4,000 posts
• Joined:23 Jul 2009
• Gender:Not Selected

• The default position is to give a ****

Posted 25 March 2013 - 07:23 PM

Cornelius said:
"The central point here is can the statement that global warming stopped 15 years ago be supported by the data - the answer is NOT."
the central point is - what is the trend over the last 15 years.

"The basis of your position regarding the models is based upon the false premise that a pause of 15years in global warming is proof that the models are invalid. Since there has been no pause your premise is invalid."
I never said stopped, i never said paused, i said trend.
the trend over the last 15 years has been flat on all indices.

"In datasets there are always extreme outliers which skew the overall result. Only by using the largest avilable dataset can the effect of such outliers be diminished from skewing the trend within the data. It is not acceptable to dismiss outliers (such as the year 1998) but it is the objective of stats to interpret them and to diminish their skewing influence."
it was the climate modelers themselves that stated 15 years of flat trend was enough to determine a discrepancy in their models, specifically stating that a 15 year period was enough to account for natural variability "outliers".

### #205 Big Jim

Big Jim

Apparition

• Member
• 250 posts
• Joined:26 Nov 2010
• Gender:Male
• Location:Amelia, Ohio

Posted 25 March 2013 - 07:59 PM

I haven't read all 14 pages of this topic, so please excuse me if my comment has already been dealt with.  I only have one observation and two questions.
I've never known any two people who can agree on the temperature of a single room.  So, what is the ideal temperature of the Earth and who gets to control the thermostat?

Edited by Big Jim, 25 March 2013 - 08:00 PM.

### #206 Doug1o29

Doug1o29

Majestic 12 Operative

• Member
• 6,491 posts
• Joined:01 Aug 2007
• Gender:Male
• Location:oklahoma

Posted 25 March 2013 - 08:07 PM

Little Fish, on 25 March 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

Cornelius said:
"The central point here is can the statement that global warming stopped 15 years ago be supported by the data - the answer is NOT."
the central point is - what is the trend over the last 15 years.

"The basis of your position regarding the models is based upon the false premise that a pause of 15years in global warming is proof that the models are invalid. Since there has been no pause your premise is invalid."
I never said stopped, i never said paused, i said trend.
the trend over the last 15 years has been flat on all indices.
Stopped = paused = flat = zero slope.
The variability of the data is too great to allow a trend to be calculated.  See Post #197.
Because Br. Cornelius cannot prove an increasing temperature based on the statistics, does not mean that the trend is zero.  All it means is that no answer can be produced within the required 95% confidence limit.

Quote

"In datasets there are always extreme outliers which skew the overall result.

This dataset is full of outliers.  In this case, they didn't skew the result.  They just rendered it gibberish.

This argument cannot be decided using standard statistics.  The data is too variable and there isn't enough of it.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

### #207 Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 10,658 posts
• Joined:13 Aug 2008
• Gender:Male
• Location:Eire

• Stupid Monkeys.

Life Sucks.
Get over it.

Posted 25 March 2013 - 09:43 PM

Exactly Doug.
You have to apply appropriate statistical techniques and limits to interpret any dataset - and the 15 year period Little Fish is attempting to analysis, and draw an overwhelming conclusion from, simple isn't adequate to calculate any meaningful pattern.

As Doug pointed out there is no 15 year flat trend to use as the basis of a critique of the models, there is only an inadequate noisy dataset. There are standard statistical tests to establish if the data can be analyzed using stats, and Doug has done those tests and found that stats cannot be applied to such data.

Take the data back to 1983 and a significant trend can be discussed for the last 15years.

The fundamental problem here is that Little Fish has absolutely no understanding of statistics yet he is attempting to use statistics to analysis the data. A crash course in basic stats would be in order if he were really honestly interested in understanding what he is talking about.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 25 March 2013 - 09:49 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

### #208 Little Fish

Little Fish

Government Agent

• Member
• 4,000 posts
• Joined:23 Jul 2009
• Gender:Not Selected

• The default position is to give a ****

Posted 25 March 2013 - 09:51 PM

"The variability of the data is too great to allow a trend to be calculated."
is the trend allowed to be calculated for any 15 year period, or is it just the last 15 years that we are "not allowed" to calculate the trend.

what you boys are missing is that the model projections rule out 15 year flat trends if those models understand climate correctly - either 15 year flat trends will not exist or those global climate models are wrong. you know it, I know it, we all know it.
now you are backed into a corner and say "we are not allowed to calculate the trend". its like watching the ******* karl marx brothers.

"Because Br. Cornelius cannot prove an increasing temperature based on the statistics, does not mean that the trend is zero."
the trend is something to be calculated not "proven".

Edited by Little Fish, 25 March 2013 - 10:03 PM.

### #209 Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 10,658 posts
• Joined:13 Aug 2008
• Gender:Male
• Location:Eire

• Stupid Monkeys.

Life Sucks.
Get over it.

Posted 25 March 2013 - 09:59 PM

Little Fish, on 25 March 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

"The variability of the data is too great to allow a trend to be calculated."
is the trend allowed to be calculated for any 15 year period, or is it just the last 15 years that we are "not allowed" to calculate the trend.
If you calculate the trend over at least any 30year period (longer is better) you can discuss the significance of any sub-portion of that 30year period in terms of its trend. If you calculate the trend using one of the standard techniques back to 1983 then you can start to look at what the data is telling you about the last 15years or the 15 years before that.

The technique you choose doesn't even have to be looking for a linear trend, it can be a smoothing trend which would show a variable rate of warming over the 30year period - but the critically important thing with appropriate stats analysis is to smooth out the skewing influence of extreme outliers like 1998.

There is no arbitrary prejudice against the particular 15 year period you want to study - it would apply to any set of 15 years of data.

Choosing only to look at the 15year period simply because it supports your beliefs is the only unacceptable thing here - and as I have pointed out is called cherry picking.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 25 March 2013 - 10:10 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

### #210 Little Fish

Little Fish

Government Agent

• Member
• 4,000 posts
• Joined:23 Jul 2009
• Gender:Not Selected

• The default position is to give a ****

Posted 26 March 2013 - 01:22 AM

Cornelius said
"Choosing only to look at the 15year period simply because it supports your beliefs is the only unacceptable thing here - and as I have pointed out is called cherry picking."
I choose to look at the 15 year interval to find a zero trend, not because "it supports my beliefs", but because that is the interval period given by the climate modelers in 2008 as a falsifiability test against their climate models. if you find that unacceptable then take it up with the climate modelers who stated it.

Edited by Little Fish, 26 March 2013 - 01:24 AM.

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users