Moon Monkey Posted January 2, 2010 #101 Share Posted January 2, 2010 What equation are you looking for? The logarithmic equation that describes the relationship between the CO2 and deuterium (temperature) ice-core data. Matt says he knows what it is but wont show it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Startraveler Posted January 2, 2010 #102 Share Posted January 2, 2010 The IPCC's TAR collected expressions for the relationship between climate forcing and various trace gases: 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate. Forcing is then linearly related to temperature change via a climate sensitivity parameter λ (so ΔT = λΔF). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Monkey Posted January 2, 2010 #103 Share Posted January 2, 2010 The IPCC's TAR collected expressions for the relationship between climate forcing and various trace gases: 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate. Forcing is then linearly related to temperature change via a climate sensitivity parameter λ (so ΔT = λΔF). Cheers, I'll look at that. It still doesn't change that Matt claims to have a logarithmic equation relating the two even over the anomalous rise in CO2 seen in the last 8000 years....and it is that I want him to either provide or admit he is BS-ing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted January 2, 2010 #104 Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) There would have been no point asking your supervisor anyway, he would probably know as much as you about the mid-late holocene rise in CO2. Actually it was about time you finished....you're a bit old to be doing an MSc IMO. Dance, Mattshark, dance. Just post the equation. BS-er. Really, plenty of people older than me doing an MSc. I also graduated in December. And it is still not an equation you want. You want the result. Which is in plenty of papers and was in the abstract I gave you, you ignoring it doesn't make it go away it just means you are ignoring it. Edited January 2, 2010 by Mattshark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Monkey Posted January 2, 2010 #105 Share Posted January 2, 2010 Really, plenty of people older than me doing an MSc. I also graduated in December. And it is still not an equation you want. You want the result. Which is in plenty of papers and was in the abstract I gave you, you ignoring it doesn't make it go away it just means you are ignoring it. Maybe in Mickey Mouse-animalology at Disney University, North Wales/Ireland. Congrats on passing...is it possible to fail or do you get one as long as you turn up often enough ? Don't answer.... I don't care. Why are you now telling me what I want ? I want the equation you claimed you had. Dance, Mathew, dance. BS-er. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted January 2, 2010 #106 Share Posted January 2, 2010 Maybe in Mickey Mouse-animalology at Disney University, North Wales/Ireland. Congrats on passing...is it possible to fail or do you get one as long as you turn up often enough ? Don't answer.... I don't care. Why are you now telling me what I want ? I want the equation you claimed you had. Dance, Mathew, dance. BS-er. Queens University of Belfast, one of the top 20 universities in the country? Yeah if you like. And it is fail one fail all, so yes it is possible to fail, I just didn't. You are making this up as you go along now, I would have used SPSS. See it does the maths for me as I am a biologist not a mathematician. I told you I would do it if you sent me the formatted data, I told you that it was accepted and shown in papers, I gave you an abstracting pointing out this. I told you doing it and giving the the equation to you would be pointless as it shows nothing. These are fairly basic points. I don't understand why you are having trouble with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Monkey Posted January 3, 2010 #107 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Queens University of Belfast, one of the top 20 universities in the country? Yeah if you like. And it is fail one fail all, so yes it is possible to fail, I just didn't. You are making this up as you go along now, I would have used SPSS. See it does the maths for me as I am a biologist not a mathematician. I told you I would do it if you sent me the formatted data, I told you that it was accepted and shown in papers, I gave you an abstracting pointing out this. I told you doing it and giving the the equation to you would be pointless as it shows nothing. These are fairly basic points. I don't understand why you are having trouble with them. Queens isn't top 20 according to the times list but no matter they must be desperate to be accepting degrees from welsh colleges. MSc's are all about the getting the fees in, trust me I know. The MSc students think they are in some way important because they are 'post-grad' but they are a joke within the department (and usually foreigners) they are just 4th year undergrads. Anyhoo. I don't want you to do anything, do you really think I couldn't get my own statistics from the data ? That is not the point and never was...the point was to get you to post the equation so I can compare the same prediction on pre 8000 YBP data and post 8000 YBP data....you know, when you said it describes all the data. Just do it, how can it hurt ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARAB0D Posted January 3, 2010 #108 Share Posted January 3, 2010 I am thrilled too, as I did not expect this to last for so long. I guess you would finally receive E=mc^2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted January 3, 2010 #109 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Queens isn't top 20 according to the times list but no matter they must be desperate to be accepting degrees from welsh colleges. MSc's are all about the getting the fees in, trust me I know. The MSc students think they are in some way important because they are 'post-grad' but they are a joke within the department (and usually foreigners) they are just 4th year undergrads. Anyhoo. Yeah, that must be why Imperial offered me a place too (I chose behaviour over Ecology) Yeah cos Bangor is such a terrible uni. I don't want you to do anything, do you really think I couldn't get my own statistics from the data ? That is not the point and never was...the point was to get you to post the equation so I can compare the same prediction on pre 8000 YBP data and post 8000 YBP data....you know, when you said it describes all the data. Just do it, how can it hurt ? Actually you do, you keep asking. You just asked again but I think you aren't worth the effort since you can't be civil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Monkey Posted January 3, 2010 #110 Share Posted January 3, 2010 (edited) Yeah, that must be why Imperial offered me a place too (I chose behaviour over Ecology) Yeah cos Bangor is such a terrible uni. Actually you do, you keep asking. You just asked again but I think you aren't worth the effort since you can't be civil. 2:2 entry requirements....yeh must be a pretty sought after course....animal behaviour .... and Bangor You were BS-ing all along, I know it and you know it. It has taken you about a million times more effort to keep dancing in an attempt to keep up the pretence than it would have done to simply post the equation whether you thought it was worthwhile or not. Lets just leave it, I am much more interested in the discussion around Ruddiman's hypothesis of the anomaly in the trends. Animal behaviour....Bangor....too much. Edited January 3, 2010 by Moon Monkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted January 3, 2010 #111 Share Posted January 3, 2010 2:2 entry requirements....yeh must be a pretty sought after course....animal behaviour .... and Bangor You were BS-ing all along, I know it and you know it. It has taken you about a million times more effort to keep dancing in an attempt to keep up the pretence than it would have done to simply post the equation whether you thought it was worthwhile or not. Lets just leave it, I am much more interested in the discussion around Ruddiman's hypothesis of the anomaly in the trends. Animal behaviour....Bangor....too much. Yep Bangor is a good uni, good Marine science school, and yep Animal behaviour. I specialised in biotelemetry. I enjoyed it, I got to do the work I wanted to do (because behaviour is important in ecology) and got to work with the most advanced biotelemetry equipment around. If you like. Seems you have such a good argument that you resort to petty insults. I told you I'd do it if you sent me the data in format and I will run the regression. If you want to look up the equation for the regression do it yourself. Feel free to pm the data and I will do the test for you. Seems fair to me. If you want to act like a little child I will simply put you on ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Monkey Posted January 3, 2010 #112 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Yep Bangor is a good uni, good Marine science school, and yep Animal behaviour. I specialised in biotelemetry. I enjoyed it, I got to do the work I wanted to do (because behaviour is important in ecology) and got to work with the most advanced biotelemetry equipment around. If you like. Seems you have such a good argument that you resort to petty insults. I told you I'd do it if you sent me the data in format and I will run the regression. If you want to look up the equation for the regression do it yourself. Feel free to pm the data and I will do the test for you. Seems fair to me. If you want to act like a little child I will simply put you on ignore. Yeh sure, I hear great things about the research done by the 4th year 'specialists' there. The argument was/is done a long time ago, here is another petty insult / truism ...... you are a BS-er. Here is the data (again, remember how you can never find it), although how that helps you post an equation I don't know. I want a source with it please not made up numbers with the stumbling inaccuracies and vagueness of a 4th year -ology student. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/domec/domec_epica_data.html Post it/PM it whatever, I'm not holding my breath. Thats it we're done. Now if you would care to address the 16 point summary in the paper you pooh-poohed which is the topic of this thread. Thank you. Bangor....behaviour..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpandMyMind Posted January 3, 2010 Author #113 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Now if you would care to address the 16 point summary in the paper you pooh-poohed which is the topic of this thread. Thank you. that's all i want anyone to do but it seems they are unable to tell me why all of the points in the paper are wrong. go science! is this how alarmists always debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted January 3, 2010 #114 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Yeh sure, I hear great things about the research done by the 4th year 'specialists' there. The argument was/is done a long time ago, here is another petty insult / truism ...... you are a BS-er. Here is the data (again, remember how you can never find it), although how that helps you post an equation I don't know. I want a source with it please not made up numbers with the stumbling inaccuracies and vagueness of a 4th year -ology student. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/domec/domec_epica_data.html Post it/PM it whatever, I'm not holding my breath. Thats it we're done. Now if you would care to address the 16 point summary in the paper you pooh-poohed which is the topic of this thread. Thank you. Bangor....behaviour..... So you won't send me the data. Yeah how strange it is that I study behaviour when what I am interested in is behaviour. I mean I should have gone and studied something I am not interested at all. You have shown nothing, backed nothing, failed to address any paper and refused a very simply request when you have asked me to do something and you have shown the wilful ignorance of evidence, shown blank graphs claiming it shows an annomaly (a blank graph shows nothing), asked for the incorrect information regarding results. Can you say irony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Monkey Posted January 3, 2010 #115 Share Posted January 3, 2010 that's all i want anyone to do but it seems they are unable to tell me why all of the points in the paper are wrong. go science! is this how alarmists always debate? Some of them, the unscientific ones. So you won't send me the data. Yeah how strange it is that I study behaviour when what I am interested in is behaviour. I mean I should have gone and studied something I am not interested at all. You have shown nothing, backed nothing, failed to address any paper and refused a very simply request when you have asked me to do something and you have shown the wilful ignorance of evidence, shown blank graphs claiming it shows an annomaly (a blank graph shows nothing), asked for the incorrect information regarding results. Can you say irony? Why do you need the data to copy/paste an equation that is available in "multiple sources". I have linked the data for you many times now if you need it for some reason, all you need to do is copy/paste and import it, you have done it before to get your stats. I have drawn your attention to a well known anomaly that has been discussed for many years in the field. I asked if you could explain it and you said there is no anomaly and it fits the known relationship through an equation that you have but refuse to show. Forget the graphs (although they are simply the last 8000 years of the same graph you posted) and post the equation, or don't I couldn't give a monkeys anymore. We both know you are a BS-er and this arguing with a animal-ology undergrad has become very boring. Back to the 16 point summary in the paper of this thread, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattshark Posted January 3, 2010 #116 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Why do you need the data to copy/paste an equation that is available in "multiple sources". I have linked the data for you many times now if you need it for some reason, all you need to do is copy/paste and import it, you have done it before to get your stats. Put source up for you, don't need to show the equation, asking for the equation is a waste, it shows you do not understand the topic. I have drawn your attention to a well known anomaly that has been discussed for many years in the field. I asked if you could explain it and you said there is no anomaly and it fits the known relationship through an equation that you have but refuse to show. Forget the graphs (although they are simply the last 8000 years of the same graph you posted) and post the equation, or don't I couldn't give a monkeys anymore. Actually no you haven't. You shown a graph, you have not put up any stats on it rendering it meaningless. You dare to mock my science when you do something like that. You have not put up any sources backing you claim either. You have done nothing except show a graph. We both know you are a BS-er and this arguing with a animal-ology undergrad has become very boring. Back to the 16 point summary in the paper of this thread, You are a pathetic little boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted January 3, 2010 #117 Share Posted January 3, 2010 that's all i want anyone to do but it seems they are unable to tell me why all of the points in the paper are wrong. go science! is this how alarmists always debate? you mean that the calculation I presented at the beginning is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Monkey Posted January 3, 2010 #118 Share Posted January 3, 2010 (edited) Put source up for you, don't need to show the equation, asking for the equation is a waste, it shows you do not understand the topic. Actually no you haven't. You shown a graph, you have not put up any stats on it rendering it meaningless. You dare to mock my science when you do something like that. You have not put up any sources backing you claim either. You have done nothing except show a graph. You are a pathetic little boy. The equation you claim describes the relationship between CO2 and temperature change over the ice-core data is the topic. I didn't need to, your own link to Prof Ruddimans work did it for me, its a well known anomaly. What is it with you and your 'stats' done a module have we ? Again, for possibly the 100th time, I simply plotted the last 10000 years of the ice-core graph you put up. The equation will allow me to see my stats generated by me as I cannot take seriously anything you produce 'scientifically' now I know your level and qualifications, not that I would have done before. Post it, don't post it...I don't care any more. And you sir, are a BS-er. Edited January 3, 2010 by Moon Monkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siara Posted January 3, 2010 #119 Share Posted January 3, 2010 (edited) As a non-scientist I'd like to say: Moon Monkey, send him the data. Obviously there's some sort of statistical analysis program involved. Also, the comment about Welsh Universities wasn't necessary. . Edited January 3, 2010 by Siara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Monkey Posted January 3, 2010 #120 Share Posted January 3, 2010 (edited) As a non-scientist I'd like to say: Moon Monkey, send him the data. Obviously there's some sort of statistical analysis program involved. Also, the comment about Welsh Universities wasn't necessary. . Why does he need the data to copy and paste an available equation that he has had from multiple sources for a month ? The only need for the data would be to now make an equation up of his own. He has had it many times, he has used it in his own 'stat analysis' of other threads but anyway: Temp: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc3deuttemp2007.txt CO2: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2-2008.txt The same data is available in excel form on the sites main page at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/domec/domec_epica_data.html Oh and you forgot the '' around welsh 'universities'. Edited January 3, 2010 by Moon Monkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Startraveler Posted January 3, 2010 #121 Share Posted January 3, 2010 is this how alarmists always debate? What's an alarmist? Someone who agrees that the planet's surface temperature is higher than its effective radiating temperature and has been for a few billion years? Someone who acknowledges that Venus is warmer than Mercury and that the Mars ocean hypothesis (or any hypothesis about a warmer and wetter Mars) is physically possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siara Posted January 3, 2010 #122 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Why does he need the data to copy and paste an available equation that he has had from multiple sources for a month ? Never used a statistical analysis software package, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Monkey Posted January 3, 2010 #123 Share Posted January 3, 2010 (edited) Never used a statistical analysis software package, huh? Oh cripes, I have another one. I really don't know what you mean by that but yes I have used many different software packages for all kinds of analysis but mainly write my own toolboxes these days, too many mistakes in the off-the-shelf stuff...anyhoo..if memory serves me right you can import excel workbooks directly into SPSS just as you can with most packages should you want to. OK.in plain english..... I want to use the equation and the CO2 data to produce a prediction of the temperature which I can then compare with the actual temperature data and perform my own analysis of its performance before and after 8000 YBP. I don't want or need any analysis of the data done for me...just the equation copying and pasting from one of his printed sources. But like I said I really don't care any more whether it is posted or not. Edited January 3, 2010 by Moon Monkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARAB0D Posted January 3, 2010 #124 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Oh cripes, I have another one. I really don't know what you mean by that but yes I have used many different software packages for all kinds of analysis but mainly write my own toolboxes these days, too many mistakes in the off-the-shelf stuff...anyhoo..if memory serves me right you can import excel workbooks directly into SPSS just as you can with most packages should you want to. OK.in plain english..... I want to use the equation and the CO2 data to produce a prediction of the temperature which I can then compare with the actual temperature data and perform my own analysis of its performance before and after 8000 YBP. I don't want or need any analysis of the data done for me...just the equation copying and pasting from one of his printed sources. But like I said I really don't care any more whether it is posted or not. On Vostok graph for the last 400,000 years the relationship between temperature and CO2 is not logarithmic, it is linear. With some minor delay on time scale - temperature changes and few hundred years later CO2 changes the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Monkey Posted January 3, 2010 #125 Share Posted January 3, 2010 On Vostok graph for the last 400,000 years the relationship between temperature and CO2 is not logarithmic, it is linear. With some minor delay on time scale - temperature changes and few hundred years later CO2 changes the same way. Wait for it...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now