Maybe pick up the phone and give your colleauge Bill Wilson over there at UNSW a call, he can explaing to you the similarities between WEighted aritmetic mean and geometric mean, Bill Wilson . I honestly didn't think that the entire UNSW cadre could be that bad, knew someone there could learn you your maths.
Well would you look at this that we find. GNU Emacs Calc 2.02 Manual from UNSW website "The u G (calc-vector-geometric-mean) [vgmean] command computes the geometric mean of the data values. This is the Nth root of the product of the values. This is also equal to the exp of the arithmetic mean of the logarithms of the data values. "
As I've said I can do it either way, with mud slinging, or rational arguement. I take my cues from my oponent. Here on/. you rarely see rational arguement, and quite frankly my position is often ridiculed and attacked here (as in many places) Incluiding me personally. Note that the original post and other posts were not towards you, you choose to reply to a post I had made to someone else.
If someone discusses it rationally, I have no problem doing the same. Most of that reason is the two decades of interst I've taken in this subject, and the research I've done into it (at a reviewers level of course). Can't have a rational arguemnt if you don't have the facts.
As to looking into the facts, please do. It's not that difficult, and while all will admit climate research is a very very difficult branch of science, examining the information put forward is not. Particularly since they tend to use the same "tricks" each time, and re-hash all the same graphs. Just today Mann's Hockey stick was trotted out again. I can say that the complex math behind gravity is well beyond me, but it's not difficult to say when the researchers say that the gravity of the earth is actually 2G's that they are wrong (not that they do, that's the mark of good science).
As to re-engaging at a later point. Happy to, anytime. My mail is in the headers of all my posts feel free to contact me, as this thread will eventually be archived, and I'm certainly not going to keep searching back here. No one but you and I are here anymore anyways. Just as no-one else is reading the discusion I'm having with Lambert in a mud puddle close by this thread. Think I've given you plenty of sources for counter examples, persue them at your interest.
I didn't say 100 Glasses, I said 100 samples. that is 100 samples of one glass. And 35 samples of the other glass. Since yourapparently unfamaliar with the term. A sample is a temprature reading. Meaning you put the thermometer in and take a reading. That is one sample, but you take more and more samples to get an accurate representation. Scientists d that kind of stuff, I know you CS types just run one example and say it's good.
We're still talking about your hypothetical experiment. two glasses, one 20 one 35, it's just how many times we measure the temprature. Really don't know how I could explain it any simplier without the big words like sample.
He never said it was an arbitrary convention, he said it was arbitrary which one is used, as they are roughly equivalent.
You really do have a problem with reading comprehension don't you. Besides thermodynamics and physics. Actually it's the temprature that's important, mass is secandary, and volume is tertiary.
Now as a Parthian shot. Below are the primary movers in the anti "Big warming Industry". I cannot find, please point it out if you can find one, a page devoted to "Smear tactics" against the Big GW scientists, though I will admit that Milloy occasionally uses a bit of sarcasm, and Singer is none to friendly towards Schneider, none devote a page to "smear tactics". Lomborg of course, in Danish Stoicism, wouldn't say anything hurtful about anyone.
Here Schneider devotes 13,245 words to mud slinging and smear tactics (including the exorbitant amount of API funding to Soon and Baliunas that covered 5% of their budget, no mention to where the remainder of the funding comes from.
"A cooling trend has set in, perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age." - Twenty-year-old Schneider quote cited in the Washington Times, June 12, 1992
"Temperatures do not increase in proportion to an atmospheric increase in CO2... Even an eight-fold increase... might warm earth's surface less than two degrees Centigrade, and this is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years." - from paper Schneider co-authored in 1971 cited in Environmental Overkill by Dixy Lee Ray (1993)
"[Global warming linked to emissions of CO2, methane and other gases] is a scientific phenomenon beyond doubt. It's only a question of how much warming there will be." - Quoted by David L. Chandler of the Boston Globe, January 23, 1989
"It is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides [of the global warming theory] as though it were a question of balance. " - Quoted in the Boston Globe, May 31, 1992
"Looking at every bump and wiggle... is a waste of time.. I don't set very much store by looking at the direct evidence." -Quoted in the Washington Times, June 12, 1992
I don't have, but have read, the entire article in the 1992 Boston Globe article. It moderates it somewhat, but far from fully.
Further, Schneider was Al Gore's science advisor, and helped to author Gore's book "Earth in the balance". I'm assuming your a Dem, and that's fine, could care less. But if this guy is running around with Al gore, it shows Political intentions, and makes him far from an un-biased person. He has motivation, likely political, behind his position.
Everything all told, I stand behind my opinion of Schneider's quote, and usage of it, as it stands.
As to the merits of research, I've read some of it, quite frankly, I'm not impressed. Shallow and non-original would be the terms I would use.
I see ~30 articles referenced, of which 2 he is directly credited as a co-author. The majority of which is re-iteration of Mann's work (where we stumble briefly on-topic), if you want a review of Mann's work go to the parent article, there's plenty. But I'll make an offer if you like. Pick a graph, article whichever you choose, and I'll point out the merits, or lack thereof should you desire. Took me about 5 minutes to quickly review the graphs, and see that not one of them isn't a distortion graph designed to look good but when you look at the labels you see that it is not what it appears on the surface. I am familiar with all of these in one iteration or another. Suffice to say they lack the same contrary evidence charts that go with these. The fall perfectly in line with Schneider's opinion of: "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." There is direct conflicting graphs developed by the same sources. This contrary data is dropped and only supporting evidence is published. Yes this is a direct challenging statement. Take me up on it should you desire.
"It's the inflation of research beyond its own merits that I object to."
I agree completely 100%, and I invite you to look into it with a scientific eye. Should you need direction I'll be happy to get you started. Most importantly Question it. Part of scientific review is to assume the data is wrong and look to put holes in it. If it you can't find any holes it stands as good. But you have to actively seek holes. If you don't understand something research it. And by that I mean more the methods and presentation, and less the meaning.
Name the last time you saw an anti GW article in the mainstream news. Be honest with yourself and say anytime you've seen a mainstream news source even mentioning the other side, or even noticing that there was an other side. Aside, of course, from people like me posting such articles in places like this.
As to scientists on the pro-GW side not getting press. Say the word I'll cite 10 articles a day till you tell me to stop. In fact I see plenty of articles about things that have absolutely nothing to do with GW saying something along the lines of "As global warming predicts.." or "We can expect more events like that because of global warming..." the Dec 26th Tsunami for example. There is absolutely no correlation between a seismic event under kilometers of water and global warming. Yet they grab headlines by supposedly connecting them. There are currently 6 to 7 articles about this in the British press everyday at this point. Quite frankly I'm calling you on that one, there are just to many contrary examples.
As to whey the likes of Lomborg, Michels, Milloy, and Singer being more well known, quite frankly because the pond is smaller, and those involved feel strongly about getting the word out, not because they are paid by oil companies (Do you think I make money from oil companies?) but because they are disgusted (as am I) by the me too science that is going on in this area, and the obvious distortions (which I notice you don't want to talk about the science, just the semantics, sorry I'm keeping it down but it struggled up), Singer for an example was a member of the IPCC, his stated reason is quite simply what he saw during that time, and as I've mentioned his site sepp is 100% funded by private contributions. So if it's a motive argument, I put my money on "my" guys every time.
But your comment about Lomborg intrigues me. Why skeptical about Lomborg. Again stick to the science and ignore what you've been told about him poersonally. Research it yourself. Lomborg himself talks openly and at length about the criticisms against him.
References.
Lomborgs Critic page
Quote from Patrick Moore (one of the founders of Greenpeace "I believe they acted out of political motivation and are purposefully stifling Lomborg's efforts to defend himself."
Patrick Moore Sci Amer rebuttal
If your opinion of Lomborg comes from the supposed case against him by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, note that the Ministry responsible found that committees judgment was "Not backed up by documentation and was "completely void of argumentation" FBjorn's press release
And to my previous point. There was plenty of press about the case by the DCSD against Bjorn, but little about the retraction of that case. And I assume your opinion was jaded by this.
I'll say to start that the supposed smear tactics weren't targeted at you or even Schnieder, and they are pretty close to direct quotes. The only purpose was to illustrate the duplicity of people (all people not just Clinton and Schnieder), and that when people are caught in a wrongdoing the first thing they tend to do is backpedal "What I really meant was..." It's human nature and I don't condemn Scnieder for doing it, my only point is that I don't consider it a defense he said what he said. (And looked at the right way you could consider this paragraph in a similar light).
I say all this because while I may not agree with your position you've been reasonable and civil, if, in my opinion, deluded. While I'm perfectly happy to be wallowing in the mud as required, my intention was not to bring this particular conversation there. Though all this has gone my curiosity is piqued. Why so verbose about such a comment. While there has been a fair bit of controversy over it within certain circles, I wouldn't consider it of any interest to someone not focused on the subject, and the way you've continued this leads me to suspect ulterior motives. And certainly not worthy of such a long semantics argument. though I will put that aside and continue on ignoring the thought.
So anyways, onward.
While I will agree your comments about debate, and being influenced by outside sources, and it can only be reduced, not eliminated. This is true about just about everything.
What you say we disagree about is the level of misbalance. I would agree that we disagree about this. At the same time I'll defend my position to the end, because it's so grossly obvious.
On the one side we have the business interests, and those that are supposedly on their side, and more importantly, accused of being in their pocket. I've still seen little evidence to prove massive funding (later link will show one "egregious" study showed 5% funding by the American Petroleum institute). I could argue the chicken and egg are they funded to prove something, or do business end up funding those who aren't out to put them out of business, business is hardly going to give money to people whose expressed goal is to put them out of business. That comes back to my comment, don't argue their funding, argue the science, show me where it's wrong.
On the other side we have the environmentalists groups. What is Greenpeace but a PR company. Granted they have different motivation, but they are a still nothing but a PR group, and they spend all of their money and promoting what science they think promotes their cause (minus of course what they use for other things like picketing Japanese whale boats). But other than publicity they don't have any other goal, and that is to include research. But is it chump change?
So while I admit that the above money is minor compared to the total worth of the likes of Mobil, it far exceeds Mobil's PR budget as you discussed it and far exceeds the sum that you mentioned with GCC in the anti-Kyoto campaign. And remember that all of the environmentalist budgets goes towards PR. More importantly, they receive plenty of PR for free, and I beg you to show me where the amount of media coverage on the Big Warming side exceeds that of the skeptic side. Head on over to Junkscience any particular day, where he reviews the news of the day (most without commentary) Pro GW articles outnumber anti about 6 to 1 at minimum.
Continued.
Re:The myth is dead! Long live the myth!
on
The Solar Death Ray
·
· Score: 1
Yeah I should have put the radius of curvature of the shield. It was late what can I say.
But obviously the radius of the Circumference has nothing whatsover to do with the focal length.
No actually as Mark Bahner pointed out long ago you don't know anything about thermodynamics, or physics probably.
What you are talking about doesn't relate in any way whatsoever to what you are discussing, For the most part it is true. However, if you have 100 Samples of the glass of water at 20C and 35 samples of the water at 30C the average temperature for each remains the same ((20 X 100)/100) = 20, ((30 X 35)/35) = 35. All well and good right? Now we mix the two together and physically, he water is ~25C, but if we go to the data we have 135 samples when we average we get (20 X 100)+(30 X 35)=3050, then we divide 135 by, the number of samples, 3050/135 = 22.59C
WAIT WHAT happen here! Why isn't the number correct? Oh right, we used arithmetic mean when we shouldn't have. Now if either we weighted the measurements or used the geometric mean things would have worked out differently, probably more accurately.
Obviously the simplistic example, with obvious skews in samples, and two glasses of water is obviously wrong, and you would never do that, you would just throw away 65 20C samples. But when measuring global mean temperature it gets slightly more complicated. We have excellent data from places like New York, London, Paris and Sydney. But poor data from Latitude 53.1 Longitude -143.8 and for Gogmi Chad (Africa) but is the temperature in New York, Sydney, and London more important than the temperature over the Pacific ocean and Africa? No, it's just as important, therefore using simple arithmetic mean isn't going to work here, else temperature from the U.S., Europe, Coastal Australia, and modern Asia is going to carry more importance than the data for more remote areas. And for areas we have absolutely no data for, is the temprature there not just as important as anywhere else? Therefore you either have to weight your measurements, or use Geometric mean, which is simply another way of weighting the measurements.
And to throw another wrench in the pie, the temperature over Latitude 53.1 Longitude -143.8 is actually more important, since it is over a large mass of water, and water has a much higher thermal inertia than land does. And in fact Pacific temperature are largely responsible for climate/weather over much of the world.
Simple enough for you?
PS: you do know that water at two different temperatures and the same mass your going to have different volumes and thus your basic average doesn't work because of that right?
Re:The myth is dead! Long live the myth!
on
The Solar Death Ray
·
· Score: 1
Ummmm Focal length is the radius of shield itself.
Assuming they use spherical shields (which I don't think they did), if the shield is non spherical than it doesn't have a focal point, it has a focal general vicinity.
Okay first off. the GCC or the "Global Climate coalition" Says on it's front page
"A voice for business"
this is a dedicated business organization. Were not talking about business here (in the thread), we are talking about scientists, I could care less how much money Shell oil spends on PR, I care what the opposing scientists say. You haven't shown where any of these organizations are funding scientific research. There are allusions, so me check stubs, show me references "This study paid for by shell oil"
In addition your references are from fringe elements, I've known of one for awhile, they are much like our buddy here Lambert that devote all of their time attacking people they disagree with, and are extremely disingenuous at best. And both are financed by environmental groups (SEED for the campaign one, The Wilderness Society, and Greenpeace for the other) So you showing how one partisan funded group is talking about other partisan funding, and even then, yes I read the articles, do not show any direct scientific patronage. In fact they say the majority of their spending is on normal business investigations (looking for new oil fields and the like, and mention no specific funding of research of GW in any way.
I've looked, I don't find it, I'll be more clear, show me a direct citation that is not mudslinging from some Greenpeace like organization. The citations you've shown is like using quotes from the DNC to show how evil the RNC is. Show me where Fred Singer is receiving Oil money, or Patrick Michaels, or Bjorn Lomborg, et al.
Actually I've researched the quote many times. Schneider does not say he did not say those words, he has only backpedaled since saying it. Everyone says it is taken out of context, I'll happily add the context, but Schnieder doesn't supply it, and I notice you haven't done so here. I would gladly read it in full context.
For your information " http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/sch_quote.h tml " is where I took the quote from. So if your talking about talking points, yes I originally read it (Complete as it is here) somewhere else, but the citation I made was taken from your referenced article, specifically because it was complete, or as complete as available.
Schnieder can say what he wants after the fact ("I never had sexual relations with that woman", "That depends on what the meaning of is, is.") I read the quote, fairly complete, and there is little room for misinterpretation. He didn't say "Sometimes we end up offering up..." He used much more direct wording like "To do that we need to.." and "So we have to offer up..." These are direct statements. Short of the previous comment that isn't being quoted being "Okay hypothetically speaking.." I don't see where it changes what he says.
"I expect honesty, and that honesty should be based on accuracy, not ignorance.
"
I agree with that 100% but it does not sit with the comments you mentioned about them having to get media coverage. Nor with what Schnieder says.
If you'll spend our time instead of trying to discredit my comments with evil intentions on my part, instead to look at the science behind it, look at the reputable scientists with alternative views on GW, and look at the science with an open but critical mind. Accusing people of this and that gets nowhere. If someone says that 1939 was the warmest year in the 20th century, and that 30 years of a cooling trend followed that, saying that person is an oil industry schill isn't a defense, showing data that controverts it is what matters. I don't care if the researcher gets his money from the Moonies or the Warren commission, what's important is, is the data true? All research is funded somehow.
For instance the IPCC over-estimated warming in the 20th century as 1.5% or 300% higher than measured values.
No, again we bump up against reading comprehensions I think.
"The folks who do the averaging happen to use the arithmetic mean over the field with specific sets of weights"
"rather than, say, the geometric mean "
What he is saying is that the folks who do arithmetic mean and weights, take sample data that is unevenly spread, and attempt to adjust it so as to give a smooth average. I.e they weight the numbers, for example, they take 500 Monitoring stations in NY City, each individual monitoring station has less weight than say the 5 monitoring stations in Provo Utah.
Alternatively one could take an average of the different locals and then use the one average as the local mean temperature.
i.e. there is more than one way to do such a thing.
For the readers at home, doing a search on Geometric Mean shows a host of people using it as perfectly valid science. In fact another term for geometric mean is "Weighted Mean" as in using the arithmetic with weights being equivalent to geometric mean.
I'll agree that in first year Physics they might only teach one method of averaging, but it is well known, even outside of mathematical circles, that there is more than one way to average a series of complex variable numbers.
Might I suggest, assuming UNSW offers it, that you take some higher Physics courses, and possibly some mathematics courses. I'm sure those will go into these areas in more detail.
Now I know you primarily use Java (spit) but you do use Matlab, I do believe Geometric mean is included within that, maybe you could play around with it a bit.
denies that average temperature is meaningful,
confuses degrees with radians,
invents a whole new temperature scale,
replaces missing data with zeroes
Side issue. If your going to call other people "crackpots" Pot Kettle You might consider being a little less thin skinned to others making the same comment about you, particularly when you spend so much time ranting peevishly about two particular subjects while sitting in front of your computer in pajamas.
Anyways onward.
Temperature scale: Similar to your discussion of degrees/radians where the only reference to any such thing, even with the Open Sauce data, is by you, and other non climatologists who refer to you. None of those that reviewed McKitrick's data spotted any such thing. More importantly, McKitrick doesn't invent a new temperature scale (Which has been done many times in the past, hence the variety of temperature scales currently in existence, usually this is done to find a better scale to examine a specific area of study) he simple manipulates the numbers in a way your unfamiliar with. I measure Strain in frequency, to the layman this seems incongruous, but in fact it is a standard way of doing it in certain areas of science.
zero data: can't find the reference on your pedantic shite, sorry site. If you'll kindly point to it I'll examine it.
As to the comment of crackpot, it is subjective for sure, used in much the way you used it in the link above. I've put my case forward, and I will stipulate my own high crackpot value, so no bother in you or others putting that theorem forward. But again I'll leave it to the reader to decide.
You may disagree with my references, as many do with yours. Thankfully here on/. posts cant be deleted just because you disagree with them like you did with this persons $20 bucks so my comments, regardless of validity will stand for the perusal of others.
For the sake of brevity I'll limit myself to the 4 claims of the Parent.
denies that average temperature is meaningful,
confuses degrees with radians,
invents a whole new temperature scale,
replaces missing data with zeroes
Average temperatures: From reading your site you either have a remarkable lack of reading comprehension for someone who has attended university or else you could not attack the research in any meaningful way so you chose slight of hand. For your edification, the comments by McKitrick discussed the change in sample size, and how it effects mean average. To borrow your example "if I have one kg of water at 20 degrees and another at 30 degrees, then their average temperature is 25 degrees." Yes this is true, but if I then increase my sample to the other five barrels, also of one kg next to your hypothetical two samples, and they are of 0C, 15C, 2C, 18C and 32C, then your average is 16.71 degrees C. Which was the entire point. Tangentially he was discussing Urban Heat Island effect as it affects results in the GHCN. Due to budget cuts measuring stations were decommissioned, the majority of these were in rural areas, leaning the data towards urban areas, where the heat island effect is pronounced. Since Global Mean temperature is irrelevant in relation to population density, removing rural measurement stations skews the data, but most scientists understand this.
In a similar effect, there is a lack of temperature data for the South Pacific, and South Atlantic this is due to the lack of monitoring stations, and ships, in this area to make complete studies. For your knowledge, this is a large area that extends almost exactly due west of your current location, extending to the west coast of South America, then from the East Coast of SA further unto the west coast of Africa, and then from the East Coast of Africa to the Western shore of your fine backwater country. This is larger than 50% of the southern hemisphere, of which we have little data, this also unfairly skews the Global Mean temperature.
Since you professed to have such a grand understanding of "average" I assume you realize to have an accurate measurement of the global Mean temperature you should have evenly spaced global samples, You can't measure 6 Places within 100 Miles of Hong Kong and profess to have a sufficient sampling. Sampling based upon population intentionally or not, is also flawed.
Oh then you decide to further reinforce his point by stating the total amount of stations lost was actually higher than he mentioned, increasing the effect, not reducing it.
Degrees/radians: Why are there so many references that have no relation whatsoever to what you are discussing? More importantly you point out a minor math error, that has since been corrected, and the paper still stands. Shall I find a minor math error in any Global warming paper does that discount the entire paper? Particularly if it is not corrected? For instance how CGCM1 and HadCM2 incorrectly estimated 20th century global warming increase by 300%, and actually was less predictive than random numbers.
You also mention that this invalidates all of McKitrick math, but you don't say by what magnitude, If I miscalculate a 20% tip on a $25.00 tip as $5.000000000001 instead of $5.00 does it matter?
Continued in part III
Main Entry: crackpot
Pronunciation: 'krak-"pät
Function: noun
: one given to eccentric or lunatic notions
Tim Lambert, Blogger without a portfolio
"Bloggers are just nerds in pajamas"
Jonathan Klein
"Tim Lambert - an arch opponent mostly criticizing unrelated work in which I'm not involved. I haven't seen any substantive criticisms."
Stephen McIntyre.
Okay first off, my reply was to the posting of cvdwl "or is it some crackpot in the back end of nowhere splashing up a web page because he's peevish and doesn't get out enough?! "
I used shorthand to reflect his entire meaning. So there are actually 4 items in contention here.
1. crackpot
2. in the back end of nowhere
3. splashing up a web page because he's peevish
4. doesn't get out enough
You live in Australia, I think we can grant point 2.
peevish
Pronunciation: 'pE-vish
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English pevish spiteful
1 : querulous in temperament or mood : FRETFUL
2 : perversely obstinate
3 : marked by ill temper
Simple Google search on your name I think proves point 3. Certainly it's subjective; I'll leave it to the reader to decide.
From your website:
"What I Teach:
Computer Graphics
Computational Geometry
I use Java for teaching. "
I think between J. Klein's comment and your self admitted profession we can also stipulate point 4.
Okay like holocaust deniers you don't believe that "Global Cooling" was never an issue in the 70's
Most people around during that era remember it, but you deny it.
As to the Hockey stick, the Global Warming religion is backpedaling like mad away from the Hockey stick, yet you continue to defend it. Continued in part II
But your assuming Energy Industry corruption where it may or may not exist.
Show where energy companies have financed GW skepticisim. I can show the opposite, but your making a blanket statement about all studies against GW, where little of it is financed by the energy concerns, and offering no evidence for it. A common tactict, whenever someone takes that position "they are in the pockets of the oil companies", with or without evidence.
By your rationale it's perfectly fine for Global Warming skeptics to mike wild accusations, false or not, about the Global warming movement in the interest of firthering science?
BTW speaking of crackpots.
Do you have a blog about the allegations of academic misconduct swirling around American anti-gun researcher William Bennett?
If there's something you think I haven't provided, rather than just make an ad hominem attack, state it. I've made about 20 References today alone, But I'll happily provide more.
If your talking about date on M&M the canadians, that's what the whole thread is about, and the fact that they have released all of their data.
If your talking about Manns data not showing the little Ice age, his graph has been posted about 10^23 times, but I'll happy link to it again.
Oh wait I'm sorry your just making Ad Hominem attacks and don't need to back them up.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I think it is on his resume actually.
"I am participating in a working group to help evaluate the effectiveness and privacy implications of the TSA's Secure Flight program."
Me? I have citations to prove my point, you just make un-substantiated claims about things you know little about.
More importantly I have citations from YOUR University.
Hey crackpot
Maybe pick up the phone and give your colleauge Bill Wilson over there at UNSW a call, he can explaing to you the similarities between WEighted aritmetic mean and geometric mean, Bill Wilson . I honestly didn't think that the entire UNSW cadre could be that bad, knew someone there could learn you your maths.
Well would you look at this that we find. GNU Emacs Calc 2.02 Manual from UNSW website "The u G (calc-vector-geometric-mean) [vgmean] command computes the geometric mean of the data values. This is the Nth root of the product of the values.
This is also equal to the exp of the arithmetic mean of the logarithms of the data values. "
As I've said I can do it either way, with mud slinging, or rational arguement. I take my cues from my oponent. Here on /. you rarely see rational arguement, and quite frankly my position is often ridiculed and attacked here (as in many places) Incluiding me personally. Note that the original post and other posts were not towards you, you choose to reply to a post I had made to someone else.
If someone discusses it rationally, I have no problem doing the same. Most of that reason is the two decades of interst I've taken in this subject, and the research I've done into it (at a reviewers level of course). Can't have a rational arguemnt if you don't have the facts.
As to looking into the facts, please do. It's not that difficult, and while all will admit climate research is a very very difficult branch of science, examining the information put forward is not. Particularly since they tend to use the same "tricks" each time, and re-hash all the same graphs. Just today Mann's Hockey stick was trotted out again. I can say that the complex math behind gravity is well beyond me, but it's not difficult to say when the researchers say that the gravity of the earth is actually 2G's that they are wrong (not that they do, that's the mark of good science).
As to re-engaging at a later point. Happy to, anytime. My mail is in the headers of all my posts feel free to contact me, as this thread will eventually be archived, and I'm certainly not going to keep searching back here. No one but you and I are here anymore anyways. Just as no-one else is reading the discusion I'm having with Lambert in a mud puddle close by this thread. Think I've given you plenty of sources for counter examples, persue them at your interest.
Ciao
I didn't say 100 Glasses, I said 100 samples. that is 100 samples of one glass. And 35 samples of the other glass. Since yourapparently unfamaliar with the term. A sample is a temprature reading. Meaning you put the thermometer in and take a reading. That is one sample, but you take more and more samples to get an accurate representation. Scientists d that kind of stuff, I know you CS types just run one example and say it's good.
We're still talking about your hypothetical experiment. two glasses, one 20 one 35, it's just how many times we measure the temprature. Really don't know how I could explain it any simplier without the big words like sample.
He never said it was an arbitrary convention, he said it was arbitrary which one is used, as they are roughly equivalent.
You really do have a problem with reading comprehension don't you. Besides thermodynamics and physics. Actually it's the temprature that's important, mass is secandary, and volume is tertiary.
"the GCC spent $13 million on their 1997 anti-Kyoto ad campaign. That's not chump change"
Oh yes. Lest I forget. Government funding on pro-Big Global Warming studies in the past ten years Averaged 4.5 billion per year
Kind of puts that 13 Million in perspective.
GCC spending accounts for The govenmetn spent $2,647 dollars for every dollar the GCC spent.
I'm sorry, but that 13 Million is chump change.
Skeptics view of the Buenos Aires conference
Debate of the IPCC executive summary
"Stanford scientist Stephen Schneider has been a leader of the alarmist camp, which has received most of the publicity" Ronald Hilton (Stanford University - 03/18/99
E-mail correspondence between S. Fred Singer and Ben Santer
Industry contributions to the environmental movement
Environmentalism for the 21st Century
The CO2 & Climate Team
is calling a scientist with a contrary view "Mass Murderer" ok under the "ends justify the means rules
Now as a Parthian shot. Below are the primary movers in the anti "Big warming Industry". I cannot find, please point it out if you can find one, a page devoted to "Smear tactics" against the Big GW scientists, though I will admit that Milloy occasionally uses a bit of sarcasm, and Singer is none to friendly towards Schneider, none devote a page to "smear tactics". Lomborg of course, in Danish Stoicism, wouldn't say anything hurtful about anyone.
Patrick Michaels
Bjorn Lomborg
Steve Milloy
Now we move on to Schneider's site.
Schneider Contrarians
Here Schneider devotes 13,245 words to mud slinging and smear tactics (including the exorbitant amount of API funding to Soon and Baliunas that covered 5% of their budget, no mention to where the remainder of the funding comes from.
Okay back to Schneider for a moment.
Some more out of context quotes from here: Schnieder quotes
Selected Schneider Quotes
"A cooling trend has set in, perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age." - Twenty-year-old Schneider quote cited in the Washington Times, June 12, 1992
"Temperatures do not increase in proportion to an atmospheric increase in CO2... Even an eight-fold increase... might warm earth's surface less than two degrees Centigrade, and this is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years." - from paper Schneider co-authored in 1971 cited in Environmental Overkill by Dixy Lee Ray (1993)
"[Global warming linked to emissions of CO2, methane and other gases] is a scientific phenomenon beyond doubt. It's only a question of how much warming there will be." - Quoted by David L. Chandler of the Boston Globe, January 23, 1989
"It is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides [of the global warming theory] as though it were a question of balance. " - Quoted in the Boston Globe, May 31, 1992
"Looking at every bump and wiggle... is a waste of time.. I don't set very much store by looking at the direct evidence." -Quoted in the Washington Times, June 12, 1992
I don't have, but have read, the entire article in the 1992 Boston Globe article. It moderates it somewhat, but far from fully.
Further, Schneider was Al Gore's science advisor, and helped to author Gore's book "Earth in the balance". I'm assuming your a Dem, and that's fine, could care less. But if this guy is running around with Al gore, it shows Political intentions, and makes him far from an un-biased person. He has motivation, likely political, behind his position.
Everything all told, I stand behind my opinion of Schneider's quote, and usage of it, as it stands.
As to the merits of research, I've read some of it, quite frankly, I'm not impressed. Shallow and non-original would be the terms I would use.
From his site on climate science Schneider
I see ~30 articles referenced, of which 2 he is directly credited as a co-author. The majority of which is re-iteration of Mann's work (where we stumble briefly on-topic), if you want a review of Mann's work go to the parent article, there's plenty. But I'll make an offer if you like. Pick a graph, article whichever you choose, and I'll point out the merits, or lack thereof should you desire. Took me about 5 minutes to quickly review the graphs, and see that not one of them isn't a distortion graph designed to look good but when you look at the labels you see that it is not what it appears on the surface. I am familiar with all of these in one iteration or another. Suffice to say they lack the same contrary evidence charts that go with these. The fall perfectly in line with Schneider's opinion of: "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." There is direct conflicting graphs developed by the same sources. This contrary data is dropped and only supporting evidence is published. Yes this is a direct challenging statement. Take me up on it should you desire.
"It's the inflation of research beyond its own merits that I object to."
I agree completely 100%, and I invite you to look into it with a scientific eye. Should you need direction I'll be happy to get you started. Most importantly Question it. Part of scientific review is to assume the data is wrong and look to put holes in it. If it you can't find any holes it stands as good. But you have to actively seek holes. If you don't understand something research it. And by that I mean more the methods and presentation, and less the meaning.
Name the last time you saw an anti GW article in the mainstream news. Be honest with yourself and say anytime you've seen a mainstream news source even mentioning the other side, or even noticing that there was an other side. Aside, of course, from people like me posting such articles in places like this.
As to scientists on the pro-GW side not getting press. Say the word I'll cite 10 articles a day till you tell me to stop. In fact I see plenty of articles about things that have absolutely nothing to do with GW saying something along the lines of "As global warming predicts.." or "We can expect more events like that because of global warming..." the Dec 26th Tsunami for example. There is absolutely no correlation between a seismic event under kilometers of water and global warming. Yet they grab headlines by supposedly connecting them. There are currently 6 to 7 articles about this in the British press everyday at this point. Quite frankly I'm calling you on that one, there are just to many contrary examples.
As to whey the likes of Lomborg, Michels, Milloy, and Singer being more well known, quite frankly because the pond is smaller, and those involved feel strongly about getting the word out, not because they are paid by oil companies (Do you think I make money from oil companies?) but because they are disgusted (as am I) by the me too science that is going on in this area, and the obvious distortions (which I notice you don't want to talk about the science, just the semantics, sorry I'm keeping it down but it struggled up), Singer for an example was a member of the IPCC, his stated reason is quite simply what he saw during that time, and as I've mentioned his site sepp is 100% funded by private contributions. So if it's a motive argument, I put my money on "my" guys every time.
But your comment about Lomborg intrigues me. Why skeptical about Lomborg. Again stick to the science and ignore what you've been told about him poersonally. Research it yourself. Lomborg himself talks openly and at length about the criticisms against him. References.
Lomborgs Critic page
Quote from Patrick Moore (one of the founders of Greenpeace "I believe they acted out of political motivation and are purposefully stifling Lomborg's efforts to defend himself." Patrick Moore Sci Amer rebuttal
If your opinion of Lomborg comes from the supposed case against him by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, note that the Ministry responsible found that committees judgment was "Not backed up by documentation and was "completely void of argumentation"
FBjorn's press release
And to my previous point. There was plenty of press about the case by the DCSD against Bjorn, but little about the retraction of that case. And I assume your opinion was jaded by this.
Continued
I'll say to start that the supposed smear tactics weren't targeted at you or even Schnieder, and they are pretty close to direct quotes. The only purpose was to illustrate the duplicity of people (all people not just Clinton and Schnieder), and that when people are caught in a wrongdoing the first thing they tend to do is backpedal "What I really meant was..." It's human nature and I don't condemn Scnieder for doing it, my only point is that I don't consider it a defense he said what he said. (And looked at the right way you could consider this paragraph in a similar light).
I say all this because while I may not agree with your position you've been reasonable and civil, if, in my opinion, deluded. While I'm perfectly happy to be wallowing in the mud as required, my intention was not to bring this particular conversation there. Though all this has gone my curiosity is piqued. Why so verbose about such a comment. While there has been a fair bit of controversy over it within certain circles, I wouldn't consider it of any interest to someone not focused on the subject, and the way you've continued this leads me to suspect ulterior motives. And certainly not worthy of such a long semantics argument. though I will put that aside and continue on ignoring the thought.
So anyways, onward.
While I will agree your comments about debate, and being influenced by outside sources, and it can only be reduced, not eliminated. This is true about just about everything.
What you say we disagree about is the level of misbalance. I would agree that we disagree about this. At the same time I'll defend my position to the end, because it's so grossly obvious.
On the one side we have the business interests, and those that are supposedly on their side, and more importantly, accused of being in their pocket. I've still seen little evidence to prove massive funding (later link will show one "egregious" study showed 5% funding by the American Petroleum institute). I could argue the chicken and egg are they funded to prove something, or do business end up funding those who aren't out to put them out of business, business is hardly going to give money to people whose expressed goal is to put them out of business. That comes back to my comment, don't argue their funding, argue the science, show me where it's wrong.
On the other side we have the environmentalists groups. What is Greenpeace but a PR company. Granted they have different motivation, but they are a still nothing but a PR group, and they spend all of their money and promoting what science they think promotes their cause (minus of course what they use for other things like picketing Japanese whale boats). But other than publicity they don't have any other goal, and that is to include research. But is it chump change?
Not a GW group, but in the news today Last year, the IFAW raised $77.5 million U.S
200 Budget for Greenpeace In 2000, the total budget for. all Greenpeace organizations, including Greenpeace International, was $143 million
So while I admit that the above money is minor compared to the total worth of the likes of Mobil, it far exceeds Mobil's PR budget as you discussed it and far exceeds the sum that you mentioned with GCC in the anti-Kyoto campaign. And remember that all of the environmentalist budgets goes towards PR. More importantly, they receive plenty of PR for free, and I beg you to show me where the amount of media coverage on the Big Warming side exceeds that of the skeptic side. Head on over to Junkscience any particular day, where he reviews the news of the day (most without commentary) Pro GW articles outnumber anti about 6 to 1 at minimum.
Continued.
Yeah I should have put the radius of curvature of the shield. It was late what can I say.
But obviously the radius of the Circumference has nothing whatsover to do with the focal length.
No actually as Mark Bahner pointed out long ago you don't know anything about thermodynamics, or physics probably.
What you are talking about doesn't relate in any way whatsoever to what you are discussing, For the most part it is true. However, if you have 100 Samples of the glass of water at 20C and 35 samples of the water at 30C the average temperature for each remains the same ((20 X 100)/100) = 20, ((30 X 35)/35) = 35. All well and good right? Now we mix the two together and physically, he water is ~25C, but if we go to the data we have 135 samples when we average we get (20 X 100)+(30 X 35)=3050, then we divide 135 by, the number of samples, 3050/135 = 22.59C
WAIT WHAT happen here! Why isn't the number correct? Oh right, we used arithmetic mean when we shouldn't have. Now if either we weighted the measurements or used the geometric mean things would have worked out differently, probably more accurately.
Obviously the simplistic example, with obvious skews in samples, and two glasses of water is obviously wrong, and you would never do that, you would just throw away 65 20C samples. But when measuring global mean temperature it gets slightly more complicated. We have excellent data from places like New York, London, Paris and Sydney. But poor data from Latitude 53.1 Longitude -143.8 and for Gogmi Chad (Africa) but is the temperature in New York, Sydney, and London more important than the temperature over the Pacific ocean and Africa? No, it's just as important, therefore using simple arithmetic mean isn't going to work here, else temperature from the U.S., Europe, Coastal Australia, and modern Asia is going to carry more importance than the data for more remote areas. And for areas we have absolutely no data for, is the temprature there not just as important as anywhere else? Therefore you either have to weight your measurements, or use Geometric mean, which is simply another way of weighting the measurements.
And to throw another wrench in the pie, the temperature over Latitude 53.1 Longitude -143.8 is actually more important, since it is over a large mass of water, and water has a much higher thermal inertia than land does. And in fact Pacific temperature are largely responsible for climate/weather over much of the world.
Simple enough for you?
PS: you do know that water at two different temperatures and the same mass your going to have different volumes and thus your basic average doesn't work because of that right?
Ummmm Focal length is the radius of shield itself.
Assuming they use spherical shields (which I don't think they did), if the shield is non spherical than it doesn't have a focal point, it has a focal general vicinity.
Okay first off. the GCC or the "Global Climate coalition" Says on it's front page
h tml " is where I took the quote from. So if your talking about talking points, yes I originally read it (Complete as it is here) somewhere else, but the citation I made was taken from your referenced article, specifically because it was complete, or as complete as available.
"A voice for business"
this is a dedicated business organization. Were not talking about business here (in the thread), we are talking about scientists, I could care less how much money Shell oil spends on PR, I care what the opposing scientists say. You haven't shown where any of these organizations are funding scientific research. There are allusions, so me check stubs, show me references "This study paid for by shell oil"
In addition your references are from fringe elements, I've known of one for awhile, they are much like our buddy here Lambert that devote all of their time attacking people they disagree with, and are extremely disingenuous at best. And both are financed by environmental groups (SEED for the campaign one, The Wilderness Society, and Greenpeace for the other) So you showing how one partisan funded group is talking about other partisan funding, and even then, yes I read the articles, do not show any direct scientific patronage. In fact they say the majority of their spending is on normal business investigations (looking for new oil fields and the like, and mention no specific funding of research of GW in any way.
I've looked, I don't find it, I'll be more clear, show me a direct citation that is not mudslinging from some Greenpeace like organization. The citations you've shown is like using quotes from the DNC to show how evil the RNC is. Show me where Fred Singer is receiving Oil money, or Patrick Michaels, or Bjorn Lomborg, et al.
Actually I've researched the quote many times. Schneider does not say he did not say those words, he has only backpedaled since saying it. Everyone says it is taken out of context, I'll happily add the context, but Schnieder doesn't supply it, and I notice you haven't done so here. I would gladly read it in full context.
For your information " http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/sch_quote.
Schnieder can say what he wants after the fact ("I never had sexual relations with that woman", "That depends on what the meaning of is, is.") I read the quote, fairly complete, and there is little room for misinterpretation. He didn't say "Sometimes we end up offering up..." He used much more direct wording like "To do that we need to.." and "So we have to offer up..." These are direct statements. Short of the previous comment that isn't being quoted being "Okay hypothetically speaking.." I don't see where it changes what he says.
"I expect honesty, and that honesty should be based on accuracy, not ignorance. "
I agree with that 100% but it does not sit with the comments you mentioned about them having to get media coverage. Nor with what Schnieder says.
If you'll spend our time instead of trying to discredit my comments with evil intentions on my part, instead to look at the science behind it, look at the reputable scientists with alternative views on GW, and look at the science with an open but critical mind. Accusing people of this and that gets nowhere. If someone says that 1939 was the warmest year in the 20th century, and that 30 years of a cooling trend followed that, saying that person is an oil industry schill isn't a defense, showing data that controverts it is what matters. I don't care if the researcher gets his money from the Moonies or the Warren commission, what's important is, is the data true? All research is funded somehow.
For instance the IPCC over-estimated warming in the 20th century as 1.5% or 300% higher than measured values.
Is your defense that I am an oil company schill?
Man I can't believe no one has ever looked at the relationshiip of Geometric and arithmetic mean
No, again we bump up against reading comprehensions I think.
"The folks who do the averaging happen to use the arithmetic mean over the field with specific sets of weights"
"rather than, say, the geometric mean "
What he is saying is that the folks who do arithmetic mean and weights, take sample data that is unevenly spread, and attempt to adjust it so as to give a smooth average. I.e they weight the numbers, for example, they take 500 Monitoring stations in NY City, each individual monitoring station has less weight than say the 5 monitoring stations in Provo Utah.
Alternatively one could take an average of the different locals and then use the one average as the local mean temperature.
i.e. there is more than one way to do such a thing.
For the readers at home, doing a search on Geometric Mean shows a host of people using it as perfectly valid science. In fact another term for geometric mean is "Weighted Mean" as in using the arithmetic with weights being equivalent to geometric mean.
gee a lot of math people talking about the benefits of geometric mean
You would find it hard to believe that no one used this convention normally
Geometric means are often useful summaries for highly skewed data
I'll agree that in first year Physics they might only teach one method of averaging, but it is well known, even outside of mathematical circles, that there is more than one way to average a series of complex variable numbers.
Might I suggest, assuming UNSW offers it, that you take some higher Physics courses, and possibly some mathematics courses. I'm sure those will go into these areas in more detail.
Now I know you primarily use Java (spit) but you do use Matlab, I do believe Geometric mean is included within that, maybe you could play around with it a bit.
Linky dropped $20 bucks
denies that average temperature is meaningful,
/. posts cant be deleted just because you disagree with them like you did with this persons $20 bucks so my comments, regardless of validity will stand for the perusal of others.
confuses degrees with radians,
invents a whole new temperature scale,
replaces missing data with zeroes
Side issue. If your going to call other people "crackpots" Pot Kettle You might consider being a little less thin skinned to others making the same comment about you, particularly when you spend so much time ranting peevishly about two particular subjects while sitting in front of your computer in pajamas.
Anyways onward.
Temperature scale: Similar to your discussion of degrees/radians where the only reference to any such thing, even with the Open Sauce data, is by you, and other non climatologists who refer to you. None of those that reviewed McKitrick's data spotted any such thing. More importantly, McKitrick doesn't invent a new temperature scale (Which has been done many times in the past, hence the variety of temperature scales currently in existence, usually this is done to find a better scale to examine a specific area of study) he simple manipulates the numbers in a way your unfamiliar with. I measure Strain in frequency, to the layman this seems incongruous, but in fact it is a standard way of doing it in certain areas of science.
zero data: can't find the reference on your pedantic shite, sorry site. If you'll kindly point to it I'll examine it.
As to the comment of crackpot, it is subjective for sure, used in much the way you used it in the link above. I've put my case forward, and I will stipulate my own high crackpot value, so no bother in you or others putting that theorem forward. But again I'll leave it to the reader to decide.
You may disagree with my references, as many do with yours. Thankfully here on
For the sake of brevity I'll limit myself to the 4 claims of the Parent. denies that average temperature is meaningful, confuses degrees with radians, invents a whole new temperature scale, replaces missing data with zeroes Average temperatures: From reading your site you either have a remarkable lack of reading comprehension for someone who has attended university or else you could not attack the research in any meaningful way so you chose slight of hand. For your edification, the comments by McKitrick discussed the change in sample size, and how it effects mean average. To borrow your example "if I have one kg of water at 20 degrees and another at 30 degrees, then their average temperature is 25 degrees." Yes this is true, but if I then increase my sample to the other five barrels, also of one kg next to your hypothetical two samples, and they are of 0C, 15C, 2C, 18C and 32C, then your average is 16.71 degrees C. Which was the entire point. Tangentially he was discussing Urban Heat Island effect as it affects results in the GHCN. Due to budget cuts measuring stations were decommissioned, the majority of these were in rural areas, leaning the data towards urban areas, where the heat island effect is pronounced. Since Global Mean temperature is irrelevant in relation to population density, removing rural measurement stations skews the data, but most scientists understand this. In a similar effect, there is a lack of temperature data for the South Pacific, and South Atlantic this is due to the lack of monitoring stations, and ships, in this area to make complete studies. For your knowledge, this is a large area that extends almost exactly due west of your current location, extending to the west coast of South America, then from the East Coast of SA further unto the west coast of Africa, and then from the East Coast of Africa to the Western shore of your fine backwater country. This is larger than 50% of the southern hemisphere, of which we have little data, this also unfairly skews the Global Mean temperature. Since you professed to have such a grand understanding of "average" I assume you realize to have an accurate measurement of the global Mean temperature you should have evenly spaced global samples, You can't measure 6 Places within 100 Miles of Hong Kong and profess to have a sufficient sampling. Sampling based upon population intentionally or not, is also flawed. Oh then you decide to further reinforce his point by stating the total amount of stations lost was actually higher than he mentioned, increasing the effect, not reducing it. Degrees/radians: Why are there so many references that have no relation whatsoever to what you are discussing? More importantly you point out a minor math error, that has since been corrected, and the paper still stands. Shall I find a minor math error in any Global warming paper does that discount the entire paper? Particularly if it is not corrected? For instance how CGCM1 and HadCM2 incorrectly estimated 20th century global warming increase by 300%, and actually was less predictive than random numbers. You also mention that this invalidates all of McKitrick math, but you don't say by what magnitude, If I miscalculate a 20% tip on a $25.00 tip as $5.000000000001 instead of $5.00 does it matter? Continued in part III
Main Entry: crackpot
Pronunciation: 'krak-"pät
Function: noun
: one given to eccentric or lunatic notions
Tim Lambert, Blogger without a portfolio
"Bloggers are just nerds in pajamas"
Jonathan Klein
"Tim Lambert - an arch opponent mostly criticizing unrelated work in which I'm not involved. I haven't seen any substantive criticisms."
Stephen McIntyre.
Okay first off, my reply was to the posting of cvdwl "or is it some crackpot in the back end of nowhere splashing up a web page because he's peevish and doesn't get out enough?! "
I used shorthand to reflect his entire meaning. So there are actually 4 items in contention here.
1. crackpot
2. in the back end of nowhere
3. splashing up a web page because he's peevish
4. doesn't get out enough
You live in Australia, I think we can grant point 2.
peevish
Pronunciation: 'pE-vish
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English pevish spiteful
1 : querulous in temperament or mood : FRETFUL
2 : perversely obstinate
3 : marked by ill temper
Simple Google search on your name I think proves point 3. Certainly it's subjective; I'll leave it to the reader to decide.
From your website:
"What I Teach:
Computer Graphics
Computational Geometry
I use Java for teaching. "
I think between J. Klein's comment and your self admitted profession we can also stipulate point 4.
Okay like holocaust deniers you don't believe that "Global Cooling" was never an issue in the 70's
Newsweek 1975
wiki
Most people around during that era remember it, but you deny it.
As to the Hockey stick, the Global Warming religion is backpedaling like mad away from the Hockey stick, yet you continue to defend it. Continued in part II
But your assuming Energy Industry corruption where it may or may not exist.
Show where energy companies have financed GW skepticisim. I can show the opposite, but your making a blanket statement about all studies against GW, where little of it is financed by the energy concerns, and offering no evidence for it. A common tactict, whenever someone takes that position "they are in the pockets of the oil companies", with or without evidence.
By your rationale it's perfectly fine for Global Warming skeptics to mike wild accusations, false or not, about the Global warming movement in the interest of firthering science?
For those of you reading along.
M cKitrick
You can whet your appetite here.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Ross_
Oh you'r the actual crackpot hiself.
Considering the amount of obsification you use I'll have to take some time.
Stay Tuned to this bat channel.
BTW speaking of crackpots. Do you have a blog about the allegations of academic misconduct swirling around American anti-gun researcher William Bennett?
Information has been provided.
Are you blind?
If there's something you think I haven't provided, rather than just make an ad hominem attack, state it. I've made about 20 References today alone, But I'll happily provide more.
If your talking about date on M&M the canadians, that's what the whole thread is about, and the fact that they have released all of their data.
If your talking about Manns data not showing the little Ice age, his graph has been posted about 10^23 times, but I'll happy link to it again.
Oh wait I'm sorry your just making Ad Hominem attacks and don't need to back them up.