Page 250 of 366 FirstFirst ... 150200240246247248249250251252253254260300350 ... LastLast
Results 3,736 to 3,750 of 5480
  1. #3736
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    ^^^ Projecting

  2. #3737
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Glaciers growing in spite of SUV's causing planet temperatures to rise like a hockey stick on a graph...
    Researchers have discovered that contrary to popular belief half of the ice flows in the Karakoram range of the mountains are actually growing rather than shrinking.

    The discovery adds a new twist to the row over whether global warming is causing the world's highest mountain range to lose its ice cover.

    It further challenges claims made in a 2007 report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the glaciers would be gone by 2035.

    Although the head of the panel Dr Rajendra Pachauri later admitted the claim was an error gleaned from unchecked research, he maintained that global warming was melting the glaciers at "a rapid rate", threatening floods throughout north India.

    The new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himlaya, are in fact advancing and that global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts.

    Dr Bodo Bookhagen, Dirk Scherler and Manfred Strecker studied 286 glaciers between the Hindu Kush on the Afghan-Pakistan border to Bhutan, taking in six areas.

    Their report, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, found the key factor affecting their advance or retreat is the amount of debris – rocks and mud – strewn on their surface, not the general nature of climate change.

    Glaciers surrounded by high mountains and covered with more than two centimetres of debris are protected from melting.
    link

    It would be interesting to see the study that led to Dr Rajendra Pachauri's panel's conclusion that India is threatened to be flooded by melting glaciers in the Himalayan.

  3. #3738
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    ^^^ Projecting


    Thought that was coming along after your other taunts missed their mark.

    How about we start a debate on that since you only wish to discuss your opinion of me over and over and over.

    Seriously dutch, get some help or stop this nonsense.

    All you have shown so far is that the graphics that scooter showed were manipulated and the core information was twisted and stripped away to remove the original position of the paper.


    Come on dutch, shrink vertically to better represent a hockey stick? Remove the instrument readings (blue) and global natural proxies over the years (gray)? Chatter? Yeah.

    All to ignore the quote I used that described the issues of the time or to manipulate data to pretend the Medieval Warming Period didn't exist? I see it in the stripped out gray "chatter" of yours.

    I almost responded until I read your other comments of "without even being a "climate scientist" teaching graphics funded by gubberment money", a point that only shows ignorance and conspiracy by not backing up the source of Lambert's funding or pretending not to know the difference between computer science and graphic arts.

    Or knocking me for not responding to whatever unknown post Enmore might have made, or comparing my position to flat earth beliefs, or ignoring the complete post I made because you can't read my entire entries. WTF should I take you seriously if you can't even take your own responses seriously?

    So yeah, thanks for proving my point that the chart that scoot put up was manipulated to reduce the peaks and valleys while stripping away all the other readings that made the average so that his a$$hat comment that a past warming period was not presented.

    You couldn't even answer the question I posed to scoot, which was where it came from. But that didn't stop you from inserting quips as if I give a sh1t what you think about me personally. You've become a broken record on that game.

    But you couldn't stop there. You stated I said something that is entirely opposite to my position but couldn't show an example to continue the conversation when pressed. As if I've never addressed how the real scientists look at natural forcings.

    That last graphic of mine was not projection. It was a statement of fact. You play a game that has nothing to do with debating a subject. And when you fail, you start the "otoc didn't say it/victim crap" as if that has anything to do with the difference of opinion you and I might have on the actual subject here.

    It was fun throwing your game back atcha. Of course my use of graphics weren't debate. They were responses in kind. Tell ya what, if your next response is more of the same'o same'o, you got the last word in. I'm sure in your world, you'll feel you've won. Good for you!

    Debate. You act like you don't know the meaning of the word. All you can seem to do in response to me is act like a religious cultist, cherry picking words, ignoring responses, and making up statements while pretending you believe what you write. Reading your responses to me are like reading the rants of the Westboro Baptists. Priceless, and not even worth the time to put up one large graphic to choke your dialup connection so that you can save the memory and call it otoc_science instead of what they are: responses to the dutch game of pretend narrow minded thinking and diversion.

    So what's it going to be dutch? Real debate or pretend wisea$$ cracks?
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  4. #3739
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Glaciers growing in spite of SUV's causing planet temperatures to rise like a hockey stick on a graph...link

    It would be interesting to see the study that led to Dr Rajendra Pachauri's panel's conclusion that India is threatened to be flooded by melting glaciers in the Himalayan.
    How about that. Peer reviewed science and one that counters the pretend position that skeptics can't get published. Good for them to take the time to improve the understanding of one issue. Glaciers in the Himalayas. Glad we can move on about the notion that science is to be ridiculed.

    I did have a problem with the Times title:
    Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds

    Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century.

    The report didn't say that.
    I can't afford the paper, but this graphic makes it pretty obvious that there are a higher percentage of retreating glaciers in the area than advancing ones.


    Even their abstract states their finding is one that does not affect all, only debris covered glaciers.
    Controversy about the current state and future evolution of Himalayan glaciers has been stirred up by erroneous statements in the fourth report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change1, 2. Variable retreat rates3, 4, 5, 6 and a paucity of glacial mass-balance data7, 8 make it difficult to develop a coherent picture of regional climate-change impacts in the region.

    Here, we report remotely-sensed frontal changes and surface velocities from glaciers in the greater Himalaya between 2000 and 2008 that provide evidence for strong spatial variations in glacier behaviour which are linked to topography and climate. More than 65% of the monsoon-influenced glaciers that we observed are retreating, but heavily debris-covered glaciers with stagnant low-gradient terminus regions typically have stable fronts.

    Debris-covered glaciers are common in the rugged central Himalaya, but they are almost absent in subdued landscapes on the Tibetan Plateau, where retreat rates are higher.

    In contrast, more than 50% of observed glaciers in the westerlies-influenced Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable.

    Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for understanding glacier retreat, an effect that has so far been neglected in predictions of future water availability9, 10 or global sea level11.
    The Times is negligent by their obviously twisted title that has obscured the actual findings of the paper.
    Their report, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, found the key factor affecting their advance or retreat is the amount of debris rocks and mud strewn on their surface, not the general nature of climate change. (not true, only true for debris covered glaciers)

    Glaciers surrounded by high mountains and covered with more than two centimetres of debris are protected from melting. (Deceiving, according to the abstract and charts)

    Debris-covered glaciers are common in the rugged central Himalaya, but they are almost absent in subdued landscapes on the Tibetan Plateau, where retreat rates are higher. (Well at least a glancing comment to show some understanding--where are the numbers?)

    In contrast, more than 50 per cent of observed glaciers in the Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable.(Ahh, one region, and only 50% are not affected by climate because of debris, but still not all)

    "Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for understanding glacier retreat, an effect that has so far been neglected in predictions of future water availability or global sea level," the authors concluded.(True. But not how the Times presented it by stating All Glaciers in the area are advancing)



    Dr Bookhagen said their report had shown "there is no stereotypical Himalayan glacier" in contrast to the UN's climate change report which, he said, "lumps all Himalayan glaciers together." (ahh, so better knowledge is used to totally debunk an older IPCC paper that did not have this paper to consider? ROTFLMAO!!!)
    Their quotes only show where debris protection occurs, brings up the best case area, while neglecting to mention how isolated it is. The charts I pulled show a different story.

    Science is working. So much for the cult depiction. Now since this was just published, let's see where it goes although I did notice when I did a search the skeptical blogs are on this like virus. And all are saying the same thing, that
    Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds


    Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century.
    Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating
    More "Cimate Change" Debunked: Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating
    Ridiculous. Good propaganda, dude. Thanks for posting that. No wonder I have trouble seeing your side of it.

    And sorry, dutch, I saw nothing about SUVs mentioned.
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  5. #3740
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    So what's it going to be dutch? Real debate or pretend wisea$$ cracks?
    You aren't really trying to be serious, are you?

    There's no pretend in my "wisecracks". I take my humor very seriously, thank you very much.

    But for argument's sake, like these examples?
    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post


    Hey, when ya go to a bumper sticker site for quips, you might be a liberal blowhard.

    Look otoc, you've gone on and on about your experience in imaging, yet your keen eye can't spot a graph that's been reduced in scale to make a point and now you want to make an argument of sorts about THAT being manipulating data? WTF? Well mister internet science dude... lay the two over each other if your claimed thirty years of imaging experienced eyes still can't see they're same damned thing.

    And now you're claiming that the grey area in Mann's hockey schtick is the Medieval Warming Period? Hey internet science dude... the grey area goes below AND above the line. And an argument about what chatter is or isn't. Back to semantics.

    Use your danged eyes, man... they're one and the f**king same.

    Look, I have absolutely no interest in your opinions, arguments, experience, or any other such stuff other than for entertainment. Your claims of "debate" have been on the cutting room floor for a few years now. They will remain there and in the archives. We look forward to your annual post describing the debating style of otoc... the one with more "I's" than an Obambi speech.

    Your bumper stickers and OMGAWDYOUEDITEDAFTERIPOSTED and all the other junk gives me a good laugh, so please continue with the usual otoc master[de]bater stuff.

    FWIW, I'll continue with my usual self. Opining when and where I feel like it.

    Like the SUV comment that you "didn't see mentioned". Glad to see you have a sense of humor, but dude, sometimes I post stuff out of my head and not out of link. And of course, you have, as usual, turned a quip into something to get away from the basic point someone makes.

    To explain, the point was... drum roll, please... that much of the stuff from the man made global warming crowd (which you, otoc, are part of), is crap.

    Like your denial of posting information about the Arctic melt being indicative of man made global warming. Yeah, that never happened, 'cause Dutch won't waste his time going through the thread archives.

    Keep on keepin' on.

    Why did I even bother writing this post? I really don't have a f**king clue.

    Its time for coffee and a doughnut.

    Nope. Cheesecake.
    Last edited by Dutchcedar; 01-28-2011 at 12:29 PM.

  6. #3741
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    How about that. Peer reviewed science and one that counters the pretend position that skeptics can't get published. Good for them to take the time to improve the understanding of one issue. Glaciers in the Himalayas. Glad we can move on about the notion that science is to be ridiculed.

    I did have a problem with the Times title:
    The report didn't say that.
    I can't afford the paper, but this graphic makes it pretty obvious that there are a higher percentage of retreating glaciers in the area than advancing ones.


    Even their abstract states their finding is one that does not affect all, only debris covered glaciers.
    The Times is negligent by their obviously twisted title that has obscured the actual findings of the paper.
    Their quotes only show where debris protection occurs, brings up the best case area, while neglecting to mention how isolated it is. The charts I pulled show a different story.

    Science is working. So much for the cult depiction. Now since this was just published, let's see where it goes although I did notice when I did a search the skeptical blogs are on this like virus. And all are saying the same thing, that
    Ridiculous. Good propaganda, dude. Thanks for posting that. No wonder I have trouble seeing your side of it.

    And sorry, dutch, I saw nothing about SUVs mentioned.
    Hey Mr. internet science dude, once again, you missed the point.

    When your girlfriend asks if her skirt is too tight, do you start a discussion about fabric thread counts?

    Be productive, go pop some zits.

  7. #3742
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    You aren't really trying to be serious, are you?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    There's no pretend in my "wisecracks". I take my humor very seriously, thank you very much.
    So it's not reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    But for argument's sake, like these examples?

    Hey, when ya go to a bumper sticker site for quips, you might be a liberal blowhard.
    I might be what? Humor is only something you can do?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Look otoc, you've gone on and on about your experience in imaging, yet your keen eye can't spot a graph that's been reduced in scale to make a point and now you want to make an argument of sorts about THAT being manipulating data? WTF? Well mister internet science dude... lay the two over each other if your claimed thirty years of imaging experienced eyes still can't see they're same damned thing.
    They aren't. Peaks and valleys have been reduced, Mr Architect dude. There's a difference between scaling with ratios intact, and scaling using only one axis. You know that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    And now you're claiming that the grey area in Mann's hockey schtick is the Medieval Warming Period? Hey internet science dude... the grey area goes below AND above the line. And an argument about what chatter is or isn't. Back to semantics.
    Stop the semantics if you are going to complain about it you hypocritical oaf. The point you continue to ignore in the original paper was about the varying data and methods. And don't forget, The Medieval Warming period is not thought to be a global event because of the data. Chatter, yeah, semantics, lol. I'm talking about the removal of data points to serve a purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Use your danged eyes, man... they're one and the f**king same.
    No they aren't and if I ever did that on a job, I'd be fired just as you would be. I don't buy this ridiculous notion of yours that you are serious about. The scooter chart was manipulated to minimize changes by squashing the results as much as the removal of instrument data and proxies was done to show that information wasn't considered. Don't be an idiot.

    I can see your customer now...
    Dutch, it's a nice rendering but the proportions are off and what about the lack of support for the structure? The house looks like shit and it's going to fall down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Look, I have absolutely no interest in your opinions, arguments, experience, or any other such stuff other than for entertainment. Your claims of "debate" have been on the cutting room floor for a few years now. They will remain there and in the archives. We look forward to your annual post describing the debating style of otoc... the one with more "I's" than an Obambi speech.
    Fine, so you are serious then and believe this. You ignore full posts. You don't want debate, you want half truths and rants to back your opinions. Great. Glad you answered. Oh, look, all about "you". Better?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Your bumper stickers and OMGAWDYOUEDITEDAFTERIPOSTED and all the other junk gives me a good laugh, so please continue with the usual otoc master[de]bater stuff.

    FWIW, I'll continue with my usual self. Opining when and where I feel like it.
    Glad we both had fun. And obviously nothing stops you from expressing yourself, does it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Like the SUV comment that you "didn't see mentioned". Glad to see you have a sense of humor, but dude, sometimes I post stuff out of my head and not out of link. And of course, you have, as usual, turned a quip into something to get away from the basic point someone makes.
    What was it? Humor or turning away from a basic point?

    The point was that the Times was posting propaganda by twisting the results and it has now virally hit all your favorite sites for information. You bash science when it doesn't suit your purpose but will will jump right in and use it when you think it does. Humor ended the post. Thanks for noticing but as usual you run off on your imagination. Oh look, it's still about "you".

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    To explain, the point was... drum roll, please... that much of the stuff from the man made global warming crowd (which you, otoc, are part of), is crap.
    I'm looking forward to when you can show that, beyond of course, what is processing in your mind that seems to have the need for several standards.

    The climate scientists admit where more information is needed and how the science is not 100%. Your side, when they are actually scientists and not construction managers or self-proclaimed amateurs with no credentials state unequivocally that the concept is a sham and a lie. Seems I like my crap a lot better than the sh!t sandwich you're trying to thrown down my throat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Like your denial of posting information about the Arctic melt being indicative of man made global warming. Yeah, that never happened, 'cause Dutch won't waste his time going through the thread archives.
    Show me dutch. That's not a denial. I've stated that I use and acknowledge forcings. You state the opposite. I can't answer if you don't show WFT you are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Keep on keepin' on.

    Why did I even bother writing this post?
    I did, and I don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    I really don't have a f**king clue.
    QFT

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Its time for coffee and a doughnut.

    Nope. Cheesecake.
    Enjoy.
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  8. #3743
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Hey Mr. internet science dude, once again, you missed the point.

    When your girlfriend asks if her skirt is too tight, do you start a discussion about fabric thread counts?

    Be productive, go pop some zits.
    Hey Mr. Architect nasty quip dude. Get some new analogy material. My discussion was how the study wasn't accurately reflected in the Times piece and how your team is virally replicating bad material as if it proves anything other than what ridiculous ground you guys stand on while nitpicking the scientists.
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  9. #3744
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    They aren't. Peaks and valleys have been reduced, Mr Architect dude. There's a difference between scaling with ratios intact, and scaling using only one axis. You know that.
    No, I don't know that, otoc, because it isn't true. The ratios stay intact when scaling a graph on a single axis, Mr. internet science dude... so while the peaks and valleys may be reduced, their ratios to each other remain the same. We can make things look more serious by making a graph taller, but unlike your claim, it doesn't change the data, just the scale used to present the data.

    You should know that, with all your marketing experience.

    to add:
    No they aren't and if I ever did that on a job, I'd be fired just as you would be. I don't buy this ridiculous notion of yours that you are serious about. The scooter chart was manipulated to minimize changes by squashing the results as much as the removal of instrument data and proxies was done to show that information wasn't considered. Don't be an idiot.

    I can see your customer now...
    Dutch, it's a nice rendering but the proportions are off and what about the lack of support for the structure? The house looks like shit and it's going to fall down.
    Squashing the results? Read the numbers on the left.

    Sorry, but your analogy fails. A graph and a rendering are not similar in any way other than that they can be reproduced in two dimensions.

    Talk about an idiot.

    That's as far as I got in this latest post of yours.

    I'm sure the rest is little more than an attempt to improve on:

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Last edited by Dutchcedar; 01-28-2011 at 02:02 PM.

  10. #3745
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    I'm kickin' myself for trying to explain this. Its kinda like explaining how to add to a kid who knows how to multiply. But here goes.

    Why manipulating data by making a graph taller or shorter doesn't work.

    Notice that in both graphs, each altered vertically, the numbers and ratios and everything else remain the same. In fact, nothing changes, except the size of the graph.



    Class dismissed.
    Last edited by Dutchcedar; 01-28-2011 at 02:26 PM.

  11. #3746
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Here's a new twist:
    Genghis Khan's Mongol invasion in the 13th and 14th centuries was so vast that it may have been the first instance in history of a single culture causing man-made climate change, according to new research out of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology, reports Mongabay.com.

    Unlike modern day climate change, however, the Mongol invasion cooled the planet, effectively scrubbing around 700 million tons of carbon from the atmosphere.

    So how did Genghis Khan, one of history's cruelest conquerors, earn such a glowing environmental report card? The reality may be a bit difficult for today's environmentalists to stomach, but Khan did it the same way he built his empire — with a high body count.

    Over the course of the century and a half run of the Mongol Empire, about 22 percent of the world's total land area had been conquered and an estimated 40 million people were slaughtered by the horse-driven, bow-wielding hordes. Depopulation over such a large swathe of land meant that countless numbers of cultivated fields eventually returned to forests.

    In other words, one effect of Genghis Khan's unrelenting invasion was widespread reforestation, and the re-growth of those forests meant that more carbon could be absorbed from the atmosphere.
    link

    h/t Ace

  12. #3747
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    I'm kickin' myself for trying to explain this. Its kinda like explaining how to add to a kid who knows how to multiply. But here goes.

    Why manipulating data by making a graph taller or shorter doesn't work.

    Notice that in both graphs, each altered vertically, the numbers and ratios and everything else remain the same. In fact, nothing changes, except the size of the graph.



    Class dismissed.
    Let's keep with your original example, dutch. I'm not discussing your Obama fixation, but you'll have to admit, the unsquashed version better exemplifies the changes in spending: which is the point of that chart.

    While we are at it, let's remember the other two data points you removed, the gray proxies and the blue instrument readings in relationship to the standardized average. That's manipulation.

    Plus, even you, while arguing that it wasn't manipulation, you showed and gave reasons why you manipulated that chart. Look above, and focus on the words that I focused on in my response: "better represent hockey stick".

    That's been the basis of my argument. And it was based on your words.

    Make it look flat until the 20th century, which was exactly what scooter was laughing about when compared to his other chart example. The qualitative reaction to reading the material. Which was my original point.

    I don't disagree that if the axis for both are readable and both versions are showing, things are fine. But this is a new argument in your dialog, that a person can figure it out. I wasn't discussing this. But now that you pointed that out, sure.

    But, if you look above at what you did with Mann, and then look at scooter's, the bottom chart doesn't even match the the original you manipulated.

    Even if I gave you a break on all that data you felt was OK to remove that was core to the original paper Mann wrote, the 0 value doesn't match, and as you said, the squashing/removal of data was done to give the impression that Mann felt changes were slight, to better make a hockey stick, and that he was presenting a stable picture of the climate until the 20th century. Which can't be farther from the truth.


    Dutch, you came in to rebut my comment to scooter. But you don't use everything I used, nor everything scooter used. You focus on one point that is winnable (well kinda, if I ignore your words and methods), and pretend I can't see your point before you fully explain it and whine that I'm a kid. A conversation goes both ways dude.

    Scooters point used two charts based on a comparative interpretation (qualitative differences) and I certainly did not based on my entire rebuttal on only one point.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Gotta love how these authors slip seamlessly between "climate change" and "global warming". Will be more fun as the cult's new "climate disruption" name starts making the rounds. Wonder how them poor bears "survived" weather that was so much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period...



    Ooops.. we're not supposed to see ^^^ that...



    There ya go... the Mann-ian 'statistics' version. It never happened.
    To which I responded:
    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    From where do you pull these things out?

    Aside from the fact that the Arctic isn't in Europe, the graphs don't even match studies or the original Mann depiction. Artistic license is great for fiction, scoot, but hardly helps frame a debate.


    Northern hemisphere temperature reconstructions for the past 2,000 years
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20...Comparison.png



    Expansion of the last 1000 years
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...Comparison.png


    The hockey stick graph as shown in the 2001 IPCC report. This chart shows the data from Mann et al. 1999. The blue lines are temperatures estimated from proxy indicators, red lines are temperatures from thermometers, and the gray shaded region represents estimated error bars.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
    In a letter to Nature on August 10, 2006, Bradley, Hughes and Mann pointed at the original title of their 1998 article: "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations"[59][60] and pointed out "more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached and that the uncertainties were the point of the article."[59]
    Mann and his colleagues said that it was "hard to imagine how much more explicit" they could have been about the uncertainties surrounding their work and blaming "poor communication by others" for the "subsequent confusion."
    If you compare his two charts by the new point you explained, the vertical axis don't match. His Europe chart is based on an elongated version to make the changes seem amplified to be able to laugh at the converted Mann chart, your flattened hockey stick.

    None of which matches the northern hemisphere studies I placed in response. Do you see why I asked where he got those from? And why I laughed at the artistic license used to compare some unlinked Europe chart to a manipulated Northern Hemisphere rendition by Mann?

    And to his point of
    There ya go... the Mann-ian 'statistics' version. It never happened.
    which is a qualitative response, the removal of your chatter actual data, only proves how qualitative the argument is. Based on the data available in 1999 and based on the data covering all of the northern hemisphere, The Medieval Warming period is obfuscated. Which is why I pointed out the need to keep all the data points you removed, as well as pointed out how it isn't agreed in the scientific community that the Medieval Warming period was a global event.

    We were obviously looking at it from two different perspectives. I was basing my argument on the original posts as well as your comments on why you did things. You decided to justify stripping Mann down to a better hockey stick while ignoring all the rest of the data. Glad we could straighten that out.

    Both right.

    But only one view pertains to my original point you came in to rebut and that was the view I was basing my points on.

    Mann's chart was manipulated and WTF knows where that Europe info came from. And that vertical axis difference between charts that applies to the point you made while really substantiating my point regarding qualified response to graphics.

    Do I make myself clear or do I have to further explain where I see we have differences?
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  13. #3748
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Here's a new twist:link

    h/t Ace
    I'm confused. Are you and Ace acknowledging that CO2 can be changed by man and as such has an effect on climate? That's the basis of the study. Pretty interesting. 700 million tons of CO2 removed and a cooling effect on the climate due to increased forestation.


    Abstract

    Historic events such as wars and epidemics have been suggested as explanation for decreases in atmospheric CO2 reconstructed from ice cores because of their potential to take up carbon in forests regrowing on abandoned agricultural land. Here, we use a coupled climate–carbon cycle model to assess the carbon and climate effects of the Mongol invasion (∼1200 to ∼1380), the Black Death (∼1347 to ∼1400), the conquest of the Americas (∼1519 to ∼1700), and the fall of the Ming Dynasty (∼1600 to ∼1650). We calculate their impact on atmospheric CO2 including the response of the global land and ocean carbon pools. It has been hypothesized that these events have contributed to significant increases in land carbon stocks. However, we find that slow regrowth and delayed emissions from past land cover change allow for small increases of the land biosphere carbon storage only during long-lasting events. The effect of these small increases in land biosphere storage on global CO2 is reduced by the response of the global carbon pools and largely offset by concurrent emissions from the rest of the world. None of these events would therefore have affected the atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than 1 ppm. Only the Mongol invasion could have lowered global CO2, but by an amount too small to be resolved by ice cores.
    Last edited by otoc; 01-28-2011 at 04:48 PM. Reason: added abstract. And btw, dutch, I love your 24 hour photolab addition. What a real you have become.
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

  14. #3749
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Let's keep with your original example, dutch. I'm not discussing your Obama fixation, but you'll have to admit, the unsquashed version better exemplifies the changes in spending: which is the point of that chart.
    I see them both as the same, so no, I don't get your point here. My eyes read the tables and then the graph... tall or short makes little difference, if any.

    Neither example represents the original, BTW. They were both "manipulated", as you would call it. I'm surprised again, with your thirty years of experience in imaging, what doesn't get seen by your eyes.
    While we are at it, let's remember the other two data points you removed, the gray proxies and the blue instrument readings in relationship to the standardized average. That's manipulation.
    I didn't remove two data points. I didn't remove anything. I didn't make the graph. In defense of the person who made the graph, removing something from a graph is not manipulating data, its simply removing it from (or not including it in) the graph. Its not so that every graph must show every bit of information or it's manipulative. Otoc doesn't decide what to show or not to show on a particular graph unless he makes one himself.
    Plus, even you, while arguing that it wasn't manipulation, you showed and gave reasons why you manipulated that chart. Look above, and focus on the words that I focused on in my response: "better represent hockey stick".
    Oh jeez. This is where you go off the rails. If you lay the shape of a hockey stick over the graph of your choice, you don't have what looks like a hockey stick, do you? Now how in hell does one communicate the hockey stick mantra without a hockey stick? Look, if you want to call it manipulation, go for it. I don't care. But it certainly is not manipulation of the data.

    I love your revision... from manipulating data to manipulating a graph. That's rich. Its like a semantics argument set-up. Live.

    Why Dutch, you image stretcher, you are a MANIPULATOR!!!
    That's been the basis of my argument. And it was based on your words.
    Well, I hope the last explanation finally cracks the ice of reason for you, because if all this back and forth had to do with your misunderstanding of what the shape of a hockey stick is, God help us all.
    Make it look flat until the 20th century, which was exactly what scooter was laughing about when compared to his other chart example. The qualitative reaction to reading the material. Which was my original point.
    No, maybe, just maybe, your original point was that about manipulating data by stretching a graph, which clearly is bulldung. But that wasn't your first response to my post showing the graph shrinking method.

    This was:



    Could you please explain where in that image I was supposed to extract a qualitative reaction to reading the material?

    I dunno otoc, maybe its one of those "stare at me" graphics and I didn't look long enough, but the qualitative reaction I had was more along the lines of "f**k you".
    I don't disagree that if the axis for both are readable and both versions are showing, things are fine. But this is a new argument in your dialog, that a person can figure it out. I wasn't discussing this. But now that you pointed that out, sure.
    Bulldung. This is not a "new" argument. Being legible or not had nothing to do with what was illustrated for you.
    But, if you look above at what you did with Mann, and then look at scooter's, the bottom chart doesn't even match the the original you manipulated.
    Get your eyes checked, they are the same.
    Even if I gave you a break on all that data you felt was OK to remove that was core to the original paper Mann wrote, the 0 value doesn't match, and as you said, the squashing/removal of data was done to give the impression that Mann felt changes were slight, to better make a hockey stick, and that he was presenting a stable picture of the climate until the 20th century. Which can't be farther from the truth.
    On the point of the zero not matching, you are correct. How does that change anything? Its a freakin' graph that shows trends. Does the location of the zero point change the trend? No, of course not.
    Dutch, you came in to rebut my comment to scooter. But you don't use everything I used, nor everything scooter used. You focus on one point that is winnable (well kinda, if I ignore your words and methods), and pretend I can't see your point before you fully explain it and whine that I'm a kid. A conversation goes both ways dude.
    Again, I will discuss the points I choose. Nobody here has the same level of interest in this stuff. Mine is clearly at a lower level than yours. Since you want to make hey of accusing me of calling you a kid, let's compare those apples...



    And yes, I'll likely post it often.
    Scooters point used two charts based on a comparative interpretation (qualitative differences) and I certainly did not based on my entire rebuttal on only one point.


    To which I responded:


    If you compare his two charts by the new point you explained, the vertical axis don't match. His Europe chart is based on an elongated version to make the changes seem amplified to be able to laugh at the converted Mann chart, your flattened hockey stick.

    None of which matches the northern hemisphere studies I placed in response. Do you see why I asked where he got those from? And why I laughed at the artistic license used to compare some unlinked Europe chart to a manipulated Northern Hemisphere rendition by Mann?

    And to his point of
    which is a qualitative response, the removal of your chatter actual data, only proves how qualitative the argument is. Based on the data available in 1999 and based on the data covering all of the northern hemisphere, The Medieval Warming period is obfuscated. Which is why I pointed out the need to keep all the data points you removed, as well as pointed out how it isn't agreed in the scientific community that the Medieval Warming period was a global event.

    We were obviously looking at it from two different perspectives. I was basing my argument on the original posts as well as your comments on why you did things. You decided to justify stripping Mann down to a better hockey stick while ignoring all the rest of the data. Glad we could straighten that out.

    Both right.

    But only one view pertains to my original point you came in to rebut and that was the view I was basing my points on.

    Mann's chart was manipulated and WTF knows where that Europe info came from. And that vertical axis difference between charts that applies to the point you made while really substantiating my point regarding qualified response to graphics.

    Do I make myself clear or do I have to further explain where I see we have differences?
    I've had enough of your replay of the forum posts. Clearly, from this response, your intention is to rewrite the past. You've attempted to change your original point, change the manipulation of data to manipulating a graph and so on. So, like the dutiful little poster, I have screenshots of your debate methods on the monster server and there they will sit at the ready. Capiche?

    As for this latest big froth of carefully worded backtracking, take it up with Scooter. He can defend himself.

    I think the points you addressed to me were responded to well enough and that's about enough for me for now.

    Arguing about crap on a graph. How freakin' ridiculous.

    Last edited by Dutchcedar; 01-28-2011 at 06:50 PM.

  15. #3750
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,813

    Re: The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    I see them both as the same, so no, I don't get your point here. My eyes read the tables and then the graph... tall or short makes little difference, if any.
    Fine dutch. That's how you read it. You said that before. I explained what I saw and you don't accept it. And that would be fine, but, instead your remaining post is filled with little barbs making comments about my background. Perceptive interpretation of presentation graphics is a well known fact by those in the field. Are you arguing against simple facts?

    Perhaps that's why you qualified your statement with "little effect". Squashing the y axis via scaling in this case of spending minimizes the huge spending differences as a visual. But this has nothing to do with your response to my post.

    Save your head bashing and calm down. All we are doing here is having a conversation. You act like anyone who has a different one is simply a brick wall yet you concede there may be a difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Neither example represents the original, BTW. They were both "manipulated", as you would call it.
    A Red Herring. We are talking about the 1999 Mann representation and how it was adapted to compare to Europe and the Medieval Warming period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    I'm surprised again, with your thirty years of experience in imaging, what doesn't get seen by your eyes.I didn't remove two data points. I didn't remove anything. I didn't make the graph. In defense of the person who made the graph, removing something from a graph is not manipulating data, its simply removing it from (or not including it in) the graph. Its not so that every graph must show every bit of information or it's manipulative.
    Let's keep semantics out of this. Fine you didn't remove data, you created a graphic to defend a rendition that excluded data. What that has to do with my background, I know not. I have no idea how you frame defense with justifying removal of data and then say the graphic is not manipulated.

    Again, your words dutch. Your graphic.
    "Shrink Vertically to better represent hockey stick"
    "Get rid of the chatter, lay over hockey stick"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Otoc doesn't decide what to show or not to show on a particular graph unless he makes one himself.Oh jeez. This is where you go off the rails.
    I'm going to ignore this right now and refer back to it soon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    If you lay the shape of a hockey stick over the graph of your choice, you don't have what looks like a hockey stick, do you?
    Huh? Making assumptions to what you actually mean, I say no you don't if you respond to what I actually wrote. The graph was manipulated to minimize the appearance of change over a thousand years, while deleting important data the was core to the paper. We've gone over this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Now how in hell does one communicate the hockey stick mantra without a hockey stick? Look, if you want to call it manipulation, go for it. I don't care. But it certainly is not manipulation of the data.
    Who's calling it a hockey stick mantra? Not Mann. People trying to debunk Mann, say scooter maybe, by joking that it doesn't show earlier changes or the Medieval Warming. But Mann's original did. And Mann's original title in 1999 was? I keep missing any mention of that from you.

    But, here you go drilling down on a micro level, focusing on one chart that was but part of a complete response I made towards scooter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    I love your revision... from manipulating data to manipulating a graph. That's rich. Its like a semantics argument set-up. Live.
    No dutch, what you are seeing is me explaining why I said something. It's always been about a graph. That's why I repeated my post. Just because you had something set in your mind, does in no way say that's what was on my mind. So I clarified. And you mock. As usual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Why Dutch, you image stretcher, you are a MANIPULATOR!!!
    Stop your false outrage and putting words in my mouth. You used words to justify the change. I explained why. Calm down, wise cracking or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Well, I hope the last explanation finally cracks the ice of reason for you, because if all this back and forth had to do with your misunderstanding of what the shape of a hockey stick is, God help us all.No, maybe, just maybe, your original point was that about manipulating data by stretching a graph, which clearly is bulldung.
    God? Maybe? Stop the manipulation of the conversation. My explanation in framing my point of view via scooters original post is not bulldung. I accepted a difference of a point of view, but here you go again, blanket dismissal with vague interpretations based on your imagination. I tried to have a conversation, acknowledged points you made, but you really have dug your heels in here.
    Thomas Jefferson to John Page Fairfeilds Dec: 25. 1762.
    ... But the old-fellows say we must read to gain knowledge; and gain knowledge to make us happy and be admired. Mere jargon! Is there any such thing as happiness in this world? No: And as for admiration I am sure the man who powders most, parfumes most, embroiders most, and talks most nonsense, is most admired.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •