here is a picture of the CRU data they released recently. http://www.io-solutions.com/WorldTemps1700-2011wAnoAveCount.jpg
ALL OF IT. That red line in the middle is the GISS temperature anomaly. The Orange dots are the simple average of each months data. All of the gray dots are dots experienced somewhere on the planet.
My analysis.
1. GISS temps seem to match CRU temps. 2. The warming visible if you just look at the Anomaly is almost invisible if you look at the range of temperatures.
Basically you have a bunch of people examining the leaves of a tree in a forest and forgetting to keep track of the forest.
That is all the data mind you. The gray dots are station data. The GISS Anomaly Temp is in red. The Simple Mean is in Orange. The black on the bottom is the number of measurements taken. The darker the gray dot the more stations reported that temperature.
Yes this is sophomoric, but basically it tells me someone is playing Charting games to make this look terrible.
Learning a new language doesn't take huge amounts of time. Watching the next wave of 'tools' come washing over the side that will make me more productive because it "just does it", makes me laugh. If all anyone does is what the next tool was designed to do, it just does it, but for some reason no one ever wants to stick just with what it does and suddenly I am figuring out how to twist the new tool to do what the inspired people want.
I suspect the real lesson I need to learn well is "Use programming to make your life easier, don't attempt to make a living programming".
Every time I hear a manager say "That's not hard to do is it?", you should be able to do that in a couple of minutes, I cringe.
Here is a chart of the GISS anomaly (in red) plotted over the CRU raw data. This isn't the entire history of the earth of course, but it does represent the raw data associated with the Claim the earth has a fever.
I am not sure I can quite agree that the earth has a fever.
Which only proves that event those educated can be baffled by Bull#*@). Skeptics don't close their minds to any of the things stated, they just realize that its nonsense. James Randi repeatedly tries to expose such concepts as Feng Shui, Astrology, etc with double blind tests. People who are in the fields though DO NOT WANT double blind tests because nothing shows up.
Nothing wrong with massage, but it is also subject to the same idiocies as Feng Shui.
The magic though is that people will pay you more if you do make them believe. I don't blame you for believing. It probably keeps food on your table. That is the number one rule that should never be forgotten.
I don't worry about it anymore. You have to apply a little analysis to the results you get from any search these days. Searching for your name will result in many hits. People doing background searches with google are likely to stop doing so because the faulty information is getting too high.
I use to take email seriously. If someone sent me something that said "You account is overdue" I looked into it. Now I don't worry about it because they are all phishing. The same will be true of "web presences"
Who alternately and randomly played a strad and a fake strad for an audience and for experts. Turned out that the well made violin was dubbed a strad equally often as the strad even by experts.
What really makes a strad sound good is the musician playing it.
How many entry level violin players play a strad?
There is no magic, there is just LOTS of practice.
According to homeopathy this dose border on a non dose because it is TOO concentrated. You need to diluted by factor of 10^50 to get close to a "standard" homeopathic dose (30C). That is for really potent Homeopathy though.
Anyone questioning their flippant use of Efficiency. They mix two modes together. The efficiency energy wise and the efficiency molecule wise. We are 91 % efficient at getting the hydrogen out of the mixture, vs we are able to extract 91% of the energy from the Hydrogen we created that we used to create the Vinegar or Cellulose + the energy needed to maintain the bacteria. Hopefully the bacteria maintain themselves and don't start converting me into Hydrogen.
I was an exchange student in 85-86 to Germany. I got to go to a Gymnasium, the elite of the German school kids. I discovered that there were exactly the same as the school in the US. Take away the non-performers and some of the performers decided to fill those roles.
The education was not vastly superior to what I got in the US. I am not saying the High Schools here are phenomenal (that is not true), just that the are not as inflexible and inconsistent as many would like us to think (this is true of both Conservative and Liberal points of view).
You can get educated in the US just fine as long as you don't expect the education to come to you. You must actively pursue it.
That is the real question and what many of the skeptics and critics are trying to get across. Shutdown the world and spend Trillions doing it and you prevent the warming 100 years from now by 6 years. OR
You could spend the money on things that actually help people like Clean water, better food supply etc.
Of course that won't do will it. Spending money in a wise manner as opposed to using it to offset the carbon cost of heating your swimming pool.
There is a white elephant in the room and apparently few on slashdot recognize it.
I bought my honda in 1991. It would still be with me today if a numbskull had bothered to stay awake last week. 190000 miles and still on its first motor and clutch. The first set of brakes lasted 120000 miles.
Computer models are wonderful things. We use them all the time to great success in a variety of industries. Everyone of those modeling mechanisms is tested every time a product comes off the production line. Boeing still subjects its plane to destructive tests to make sure that predicted failure points happen as predicted.
When the weather can be predicted further than a week out, I will start to lend credence to Climate models. Until such time, those scientists who espout faith in their GCM for timelines > 10 years (and I would like to say > 1 week) are FOS. Recognizing the limitations of your model are fundamental to being a relevant. Those who fail to recognize the limitations of their models are either Fools or Snake oil salesmen. From Neither would I take advice.
What is really wrong is this amazing belief system that is out there about Global Warming. Anyone who takes an hour and reads The Real Inconvenient Truth on Junkscience can get a glimmering of why we question the handwringing of the Global Alarmists. The data that makes everyone sweat has been massaged heavily. When you look at the rawer forms of data, you say, WTF! there ain't nothing to get your panties in a wad over. If anything we should be excited that it appears that Global Warming is available to Keep us from Freezing.
In most other countries of the world "Graft" is a line item on the budget. While graft may still exist in this country, it isn't nearly as widespread as it was in the past. The fine art of pre-tipping has been lost by the likes of myself and many other on this forum I suspect.
Cyanide will not kill you at really low levels (as in barely detectable).
The poison is in the dose.
Water will kill you in high enough of a dose, and we aren't talking about drowning.
I just read an article about homeless being fed by some church. The protectors of the homeless tried to shut it down since the cooks didn't have their certificates from the government. In this bright individuals mind it was better for the homeless individual to eat out of garbage cans than to eat out of a Church's kitchen. (Article by John Stossel).
Any scientist/epidemiologist who publishes studies where the Relative Risk is less than 3.00 (in this case it was 1.47) should be severely chastised. RR's 3 are effectively meaningless. At least this isn't the result of a data dredge, but sample size is small.
Rules of thumb for those trying to use epidemiology.
1. Find a disease that is apparently abnormally present. 2. Use epidemiological tools to isolate potential causes of abnormality. 3. Verify the cause.
Doing this backwards is pointless. That is -- find a cause and try to link it to a disease. The number of variables involved are too involved to disentangle.
If you think you can disentangle the variables involved in such a calculation, you haven't looked at the data gathering methods involved. How do you measure all variables associated with the people involved? Strap a recorder to them? Think about all the variables you have to someone garner from the recorder. Who did they come in contact with, what were those people's health profile?
The only reason these things are interesting is that somehow they keep getting published.
When you check into a public school these days, you have to get a badge from the front desk (after signing in). When you walk around the school with the badge on, no one questions you. If you don't have a badge on, people will accost you. Take a blank business card and hang it from your shirt and no one will stop you.
I tried to point out the futility of such a system, but they don't get it.
If you want the school to be secure, here is the simple solution.
If you see someone you don't know, walk up to them and say "Hi, my name is Charlie, can I help you find anything?" Too busy to do this, DONT EXPECT SECURITY.
Any conjurer will tell you the futility of this system. Conjurer's make stuff happening when you are looking (sometimes days before you think he is doing it). This camera may identify when a person gets out of control and ignores his surroundings, but will be useless for people who plan ahead, especially if they know such a system is in place. Its greatest use is what cameras are currently used for, checking what happened after the fact.
Once again Scientists fail to consult those who make their living by fooling us.
Anytime a correlation approached 1 (like I need to tell this crowd), relavance of the subject approaches zero. In the Second hand smoke study (A meta study by the EPA), the correlation bounded 1 at the 95% confidence interval. This doesn't look very good for someone trying to say "Second hand smoke is bad". So what does the EPA do? They lower the confidence interval to 90%. Please check out Numberwatch for discussions of why 95% is a really bad number. Any number less is just plain FRAUD.
Even with the lower confidence interval (p value or poisson ratio inverted), the EPA was only able to show a Relative Risk (correlation) of 1.19. Everyone run for the hills.
Even First Hand smoke is a little dubious. As JEB at numbewatch puts it, saying that smoking causes cancer is like that fertilizer cause tomatoes to grow. Using the same statistics that make the CDC say that 400,000 people each year die prematurely from smoking, you can say that 200,000 people each year are saved by smoking. The calculation is fraudulent, irrelavent and insulting.
Mr. Brigness of Numberwatch would love to be on the payroll of any of those illustrious companies, but he just keeps fighting irrational numbers because he is ornery, not because he has a financial axe to grind. Actually he does, he just doesn't get to see the money flow into his coffers.
Remember the Global Warming industry is rolling to the tune of $2.5 Billion. But it doesn't matter if they have fiscal motivation for crying wolf.
This is a crowd of programmers. Don't we have people here who have experience dealing with non-linear coupled models. We did a project in Engineering to model a Cross-flow heat exchanger inside a building. The dynamics of X-Flow are moderately well understood. 20 students made 20 models we had 20 solutions with different outputs, no correlation whatsoever. The professor was stumped. He failed to recognize that when you start approximating Nusselt, Prandl, Russel, and several other factors, you are pretty much screwed especially when they are all hinged upon each other. That was in a contained system. One in which all boundary conditions have been specifically defined. Got news for the Global Circulation Modelers, they aint got that.
Here I was thinking I was telling my boss old stories and making him think they were new, but obviously since the WSJ is just reporting it, I was way ahead of the curve in telling him.
I love to read environmentalist yapping about how they are helping the environment by buying their new PRIUS. What wasn't discussed in the article was the cost to the environment to MANUFACTURE the PRIUS. There is steel, rubber, plastic, and lead in that car, that wouldn't have been made if you didn't trade in your car.
Slashdot Mirror
here is a picture of the CRU data they released recently. http://www.io-solutions.com/WorldTemps1700-2011wAnoAveCount.jpg
ALL OF IT. That red line in the middle is the GISS temperature anomaly. The Orange dots are the simple average of each months data. All of the gray dots are dots experienced somewhere on the planet.
My analysis.
1. GISS temps seem to match CRU temps.
2. The warming visible if you just look at the Anomaly is almost invisible if you look at the range of temperatures.
Basically you have a bunch of people examining the leaves of a tree in a forest and forgetting to keep track of the forest.
The forest does matter.
Here is the CRU Date plotted against time.
http://www.io-solutions.com/WorldTemps1700-2011wAnoAveCount.jpg
That is all the data mind you. The gray dots are station data. The GISS Anomaly Temp is in red. The Simple Mean is in Orange. The black on the bottom is the number of measurements taken. The darker the gray dot the more stations reported that temperature.
Yes this is sophomoric, but basically it tells me someone is playing Charting games to make this look terrible.
Learning a new language doesn't take huge amounts of time. Watching the next wave of 'tools' come washing over the side that will make me more productive because it "just does it", makes me laugh. If all anyone does is what the next tool was designed to do, it just does it, but for some reason no one ever wants to stick just with what it does and suddenly I am figuring out how to twist the new tool to do what the inspired people want.
I suspect the real lesson I need to learn well is "Use programming to make your life easier, don't attempt to make a living programming".
Every time I hear a manager say "That's not hard to do is it?", you should be able to do that in a couple of minutes, I cringe.
http://www.io-solutions.com/WorldTemp1870-2011wAnomaly.jpg
Here is a chart of the GISS anomaly (in red) plotted over the CRU raw data. This isn't the entire history of the earth of course, but it does represent the raw data associated with the Claim the earth has a fever.
I am not sure I can quite agree that the earth has a fever.
No one will be scammed.
Which only proves that event those educated can be baffled by Bull#*@). Skeptics don't close their minds to any of the things stated, they just realize that its nonsense. James Randi repeatedly tries to expose such concepts as Feng Shui, Astrology, etc with double blind tests. People who are in the fields though DO NOT WANT double blind tests because nothing shows up.
Nothing wrong with massage, but it is also subject to the same idiocies as Feng Shui.
The magic though is that people will pay you more if you do make them believe. I don't blame you for believing. It probably keeps food on your table. That is the number one rule that should never be forgotten.
I don't worry about it anymore. You have to apply a little analysis to the results you get from any search these days. Searching for your name will result in many hits. People doing background searches with google are likely to stop doing so because the faulty information is getting too high.
I use to take email seriously. If someone sent me something that said "You account is overdue" I looked into it. Now I don't worry about it because they are all phishing. The same will be true of "web presences"
Who alternately and randomly played a strad and a fake strad for an audience and for experts. Turned out that the well made violin was dubbed a strad equally often as the strad even by experts.
What really makes a strad sound good is the musician playing it.
How many entry level violin players play a strad?
There is no magic, there is just LOTS of practice.
It was posted on April 2 ....
Wait...
According to homeopathy this dose border on a non dose because it is TOO concentrated. You need to diluted by factor of 10^50 to get close to a "standard" homeopathic dose (30C). That is for really potent Homeopathy though.
Anyone questioning their flippant use of Efficiency. They mix two modes together. The efficiency energy wise and the efficiency molecule wise. We are 91 % efficient at getting the hydrogen out of the mixture, vs we are able to extract 91% of the energy from the Hydrogen we created that we used to create the Vinegar or Cellulose + the energy needed to maintain the bacteria. Hopefully the bacteria maintain themselves and don't start converting me into Hydrogen.
Excellent comment.
I was an exchange student in 85-86 to Germany. I got to go to a Gymnasium, the elite of the German school kids. I discovered that there were exactly the same as the school in the US. Take away the non-performers and some of the performers decided to fill those roles.
The education was not vastly superior to what I got in the US. I am not saying the High Schools here are phenomenal (that is not true), just that the are not as inflexible and inconsistent as many would like us to think (this is true of both Conservative and Liberal points of view).
You can get educated in the US just fine as long as you don't expect the education to come to you. You must actively pursue it.
What are we going to do about it?
That is the real question and what many of the skeptics and critics are trying to get across. Shutdown the world and spend Trillions doing it and you prevent the warming 100 years from now by 6 years. OR
You could spend the money on things that actually help people like Clean water, better food supply etc.
Of course that won't do will it. Spending money in a wise manner as opposed to using it to offset the carbon cost of heating your swimming pool.
There is a white elephant in the room and apparently few on slashdot recognize it.
I bought my honda in 1991. It would still be with me today if a numbskull had bothered to stay awake last week. 190000 miles and still on its first motor and clutch. The first set of brakes lasted 120000 miles.
I loved my honda.
Computer models are wonderful things. We use them all the time to great success in a variety of industries. Everyone of those modeling mechanisms is tested every time a product comes off the production line. Boeing still subjects its plane to destructive tests to make sure that predicted failure points happen as predicted.
When the weather can be predicted further than a week out, I will start to lend credence to Climate models. Until such time, those scientists who espout faith in their GCM for timelines > 10 years (and I would like to say > 1 week) are FOS. Recognizing the limitations of your model are fundamental to being a relevant. Those who fail to recognize the limitations of their models are either Fools or Snake oil salesmen. From Neither would I take advice.
What is really wrong is this amazing belief system that is out there about Global Warming. Anyone who takes an hour and reads The Real Inconvenient Truth on Junkscience can get a glimmering of why we question the handwringing of the Global Alarmists. The data that makes everyone sweat has been massaged heavily. When you look at the rawer forms of data, you say, WTF! there ain't nothing to get your panties in a wad over. If anything we should be excited that it appears that Global Warming is available to Keep us from Freezing.
In most other countries of the world "Graft" is a line item on the budget. While graft may still exist in this country, it isn't nearly as widespread as it was in the past. The fine art of pre-tipping has been lost by the likes of myself and many other on this forum I suspect.
Cyanide will not kill you at really low levels (as in barely detectable).
The poison is in the dose.
Water will kill you in high enough of a dose, and we aren't talking about drowning.
I just read an article about homeless being fed by some church. The protectors of the homeless tried to shut it down since the cooks didn't have their certificates from the government. In this bright individuals mind it was better for the homeless individual to eat out of garbage cans than to eat out of a Church's kitchen. (Article by John Stossel).
Any scientist/epidemiologist who publishes studies where the Relative Risk is less than 3.00 (in this case it was 1.47) should be severely chastised. RR's 3 are effectively meaningless. At least this isn't the result of a data dredge, but sample size is small.
Rules of thumb for those trying to use epidemiology.
1. Find a disease that is apparently abnormally present.
2. Use epidemiological tools to isolate potential causes of abnormality.
3. Verify the cause.
Doing this backwards is pointless. That is -- find a cause and try to link it to a disease. The number of variables involved are too involved to disentangle.
If you think you can disentangle the variables involved in such a calculation, you haven't looked at the data gathering methods involved. How do you measure all variables associated with the people involved? Strap a recorder to them? Think about all the variables you have to someone garner from the recorder. Who did they come in contact with, what were those people's health profile?
The only reason these things are interesting is that somehow they keep getting published.
When you check into a public school these days, you have to get a badge from the front desk (after signing in). When you walk around the school with the badge on, no one questions you. If you don't have a badge on, people will accost you. Take a blank business card and hang it from your shirt and no one will stop you.
I tried to point out the futility of such a system, but they don't get it.
If you want the school to be secure, here is the simple solution.
If you see someone you don't know, walk up to them and say "Hi, my name is Charlie, can I help you find anything?" Too busy to do this, DONT EXPECT SECURITY.
Any conjurer will tell you the futility of this system. Conjurer's make stuff happening when you are looking (sometimes days before you think he is doing it). This camera may identify when a person gets out of control and ignores his surroundings, but will be useless for people who plan ahead, especially if they know such a system is in place. Its greatest use is what cameras are currently used for, checking what happened after the fact.
Once again Scientists fail to consult those who make their living by fooling us.
I just skimmed the report.
Despite stating that there is a statistically significant correlation, the do not report it.
There is no Risk Ratio, no Odds Ratio, no confidence interval provided in the abstract, results, conclusion or data set.
The confidence interval they used was 10%. This is the same fraud used by the EPA to make second hand smoke seem dangerous.
This is a report to make some epidemiologist a name. IT IS PURE HOGWASH.
Anytime a correlation approached 1 (like I need to tell this crowd), relavance of the subject approaches zero. In the Second hand smoke study (A meta study by the EPA), the correlation bounded 1 at the 95% confidence interval. This doesn't look very good for someone trying to say "Second hand smoke is bad". So what does the EPA do? They lower the confidence interval to 90%. Please check out Numberwatch for discussions of why 95% is a really bad number. Any number less is just plain FRAUD.
Even with the lower confidence interval (p value or poisson ratio inverted), the EPA was only able to show a Relative Risk (correlation) of 1.19. Everyone run for the hills.
Even First Hand smoke is a little dubious. As JEB at numbewatch puts it, saying that smoking causes cancer is like that fertilizer cause tomatoes to grow. Using the same statistics that make the CDC say that 400,000 people each year die prematurely from smoking, you can say that 200,000 people each year are saved by smoking. The calculation is fraudulent, irrelavent and insulting.
Mr. Brigness of Numberwatch would love to be on the payroll of any of those illustrious companies, but he just keeps fighting irrational numbers because he is ornery, not because he has a financial axe to grind. Actually he does, he just doesn't get to see the money flow into his coffers.
Remember the Global Warming industry is rolling to the tune of $2.5 Billion. But it doesn't matter if they have fiscal motivation for crying wolf.
This is a crowd of programmers. Don't we have people here who have experience dealing with non-linear coupled models. We did a project in Engineering to model a Cross-flow heat exchanger inside a building. The dynamics of X-Flow are moderately well understood. 20 students made 20 models we had 20 solutions with different outputs, no correlation whatsoever. The professor was stumped. He failed to recognize that when you start approximating Nusselt, Prandl, Russel, and several other factors, you are pretty much screwed especially when they are all hinged upon each other. That was in a contained system. One in which all boundary conditions have been specifically defined. Got news for the Global Circulation Modelers, they aint got that.
Here I was thinking I was telling my boss old stories and making him think they were new, but obviously since the WSJ is just reporting it, I was way ahead of the curve in telling him.
I must be psychic.
I love to read environmentalist yapping about how they are helping the environment by buying their new PRIUS. What wasn't discussed in the article was the cost to the environment to MANUFACTURE the PRIUS. There is steel, rubber, plastic, and lead in that car, that wouldn't have been made if you didn't trade in your car.
geesh