Remember me
▼ Content

The Data Mine



Page 1 of 6123>>>
The Data Mine12-10-2015 22:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
It has occurred to me that there is a lot of numbers being thrown around to prove this or prove that. This thread will concentrate on presenting data that either support or falsifies whether global warming is taking place, and if so, by how much.

A few rules (as always!):

1. Since anyone can make up numbers or quote numbers from someone else that did, any data presented here must conform to the following limitations:
a. the source must be known. It does not have be well known, but it must be known.
b. the data must be in raw form (no fudging allowed, and no composites of data allowed) unless you can show the equation the modification used and the justification for that equation. Note that composite data such as central NOAA composite temperatures are not admissible here. Individual station data, however, is.
2. the data must be presented in the actual forum. A link may be used to back up the quotation, but a copy of the data must be here for all to see without using the link.
3. The methodology of collecting the data must be available. In other words, how was the data actually collected (the mechanisms, the instrumentation, etc). Be prepared to produce that information on demand. It would be best to show it up front.
4. The range of the data must be shown. The range of collection period, in other words.
5. The reliability of the data collection apparatus must be shown. Data collected over a long period of time is particularly susceptible to equipment failures or failures related to influences not part of the collection methodology.
6. If a plot is used, the scales must be linear (unless the units themselves are logarithmic), and must be referenced against a zero for the ground reference (axis reference).
7. Computed or modeled data is not data and is therefore not admissible.
8. Conclusions based on the data should be restricted to that data only. No conclusions from conclusions. In other words, you can show a town is warming, but concluding that proves global warming is not permissible. Neither is listing or conjecturing catastrophes that will result from a particular plot or dataset. This leaves the reader free to determine their own conclusion of the data from the actual data, not unrelated conclusions presented with it.

In my own experience I have found numbers thrown out there a lot. I suspect all numbers until I know where the number came from, who generated it, how the number was generated, and for what purpose. Until I know these things, the number is nothing more than a random number to me.

These rules may seem stringent, and they are. I believe they are necessary at the least, however, to cut through the wad of random numbers that keep getting thrown around.

The floor is open to contributors.
12-10-2015 23:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)


Data collection began in 1958 and continues through today. This data is compensated for using reference stations away from volcanic plumes to remove the effects of local Mauna Loa volcanic activity. Data collected by NOAA and the Mauna Loa observatory. This graph shows CO2 content has increased from 318ppm to 400ppm (an increase of 22ppm over a span of 57 years). The increase is amazingly smooth, with variations due to seasonal changes.

The metholodogy of collection is to slowly pump air through a small cylindrical cell with flat windows on both ends. Infrared light is transmitted through one window, through the cell, through the second window, and is measured by a detector that is sensitive to infrared radiation. Calibration of the instrument is against references of known CO2 concentration samples.

Included to get this out of the way up front.
Edited on 12-10-2015 23:22
12-10-2015 23:20
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Into the Night,

Wow, that is the most incredible thing I've ever seen posted here, and I think you deserve appropriate praise and applause for it.

However, as you are presenting so many rules to us at one time, I think it would help the rest of us a lot if you would first organize all of your rules using the following suggested guidelines (we eagerly await your response):

1. Since anyone can make up rules or quote rules from someone else that did, any rules presented here must conform to the following limitations:
a. the source must be known. It does not have be well known, but it must be known.
b. the rules must be in raw form (no fudging allowed, and no composites of rules allowed) unless you can show the rule of modification used and the justification for that rule. Note that composite rules such as central NOAA rules of temperatures are not admissible here. Individual NOAA station rules, however, are.
2. the rules must be presented in the actual forum. A link may be used to back up the quotation, but a copy of the rules must be here for all to see without using the link.
3. The methodology of collecting the rules must be available. In other words, how were the rules actually collected (the mechanisms, the instrumentation, etc). Be prepared to produce that information on demand. It would be best to show it up front.
4. The range of the rules must be shown. The range of collection period, in other words.
5. The reliability of the rules collection apparatus must be shown. Rules collected over a long period of time are particularly susceptible to equipment failures or failures related to influences on the part of the collection methodology.
6. If a plot is used, the rules must be linear (unless the rules themselves are logarithmic), and must be referenced against a zero rule for the ground reference (axis rule of reference).
7. Computed or modeled rules are not rules and are therefore not admissible.
8. Conclusions based on the rules should be restricted to those rules only. No conclusions from conclusions. In other words, you can show a rule is warming, but concluding that proves global ruling is not permissible. Neither is listing or conjecturing rules that will result from a particular plot or rule set. This leaves the reader free to determine their own conclusion of the rules from the actual rules, not unrelated conclusions presented with it.



PS - you must be a blast at cocktail parties.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
12-10-2015 23:23
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Oh my god, I can't believe I'm actually saying this:

IBdaMann, come quick, we neeeeeed youuuuu!!!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
12-10-2015 23:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
trafn wrote:
Hi Into the Night,

Wow, that is the most incredible thing I've ever seen posted here, and I think you deserve appropriate praise and applause for it.

However, as you are presenting so many rules to us at one time, I think it would help the rest of us a lot if you would first organize all of your rules using the following suggested guidelines (we eagerly await your response):

1. Since anyone can make up rules or quote rules from someone else that did, any rules presented here must conform to the following limitations:
a. the source must be known. It does not have be well known, but it must be known.
b. the rules must be in raw form (no fudging allowed, and no composites of rules allowed) unless you can show the rule of modification used and the justification for that rule. Note that composite rules such as central NOAA rules of temperatures are not admissible here. Individual NOAA station rules, however, are.
2. the rules must be presented in the actual forum. A link may be used to back up the quotation, but a copy of the rules must be here for all to see without using the link.
3. The methodology of collecting the rules must be available. In other words, how were the rules actually collected (the mechanisms, the instrumentation, etc). Be prepared to produce that information on demand. It would be best to show it up front.
4. The range of the rules must be shown. The range of collection period, in other words.
5. The reliability of the rules collection apparatus must be shown. Rules collected over a long period of time are particularly susceptible to equipment failures or failures related to influences on the part of the collection methodology.
6. If a plot is used, the rules must be linear (unless the rules themselves are logarithmic), and must be referenced against a zero rule for the ground reference (axis rule of reference).
7. Computed or modeled rules are not rules and are therefore not admissible.
8. Conclusions based on the rules should be restricted to those rules only. No conclusions from conclusions. In other words, you can show a rule is warming, but concluding that proves global ruling is not permissible. Neither is listing or conjecturing rules that will result from a particular plot or rule set. This leaves the reader free to determine their own conclusion of the rules from the actual rules, not unrelated conclusions presented with it.



PS - you must be a blast at cocktail parties.


Since a rule is not data (it's a rule, made up by me). This rewording does not make sense.
The rules are simple, if lengthy. They are designed to guard against baseless numbers coming out of the thick air so common in such debates. It only makes sense to follow them.

Sorry...I am not a blast at cocktail parties. I don't go to them! I don't drink.

Edited on 12-10-2015 23:35
12-10-2015 23:35
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
In the Night wrote:
This rewording does not make sense.

So, you're assuming the original wording did?

In the Night wrote:
Sorry...I am not a blast at cocktail parties. I don't go to them!

Imagine that.


Oh, for god's sake IBdaMann!
Where are you? WHERE ARE YOU?
I can't keep this up forever!



The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
12-10-2015 23:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
trafn wrote:
In the Night wrote:
This rewording does not make sense.

So, you're assuming the original wording did?

In the Night wrote:
Sorry...I am not a blast at cocktail parties. I don't go to them!

Imagine that.


Oh, for god's sake IBdaMann!
Where are you? WHERE ARE YOU?
I can't keep this up forever!


Yes. These rules are designed to limit numbers coming out of everywhere with no base or reference. Or numbers that are biased in some way. When I word such rules it is with quite a bit of thought that goes into them.

I have already presented the data from Mauna Loa. This is the form and support I would expect of any data. Use that as a 'form guide' if you wish, remembering the rules I set up.
Edited on 12-10-2015 23:41
12-10-2015 23:41
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Sorry it took so long to reply, but I had to finish downing my liter of scotch.

Is this what you're trying to avoid with all those rules:




Oh please help me!
Where is our lord and savior?
IBdaMannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn......

Edited on 12-10-2015 23:43
12-10-2015 23:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
trafn wrote:
Sorry it took so long to reply, but I had to finish downing my liter of scotch.

Is this what you're trying to avoid with all those rules:


Oh please help me!
Where is our lord and savior?
IBdaMannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn......


Partially, but also to impose rules of verification which have been sadly ignored in much of the stuff I see presented.
12-10-2015 23:55
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Into the Night wrote:
Partially, but also to impose rules of verification which have been sadly ignored in much of the stuff I see presented.

Okay, so you have a deep rooted need to impose rules on others. Let's take a moment to examine this. First, do you see any similarities between that unresolved inner need and this:




....oh dear, the scotch is all gone.
....remember me when it's all over.
....is that you mother?
....there up in the light?
....i'm coming!



The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
13-10-2015 00:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=457773&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2014.sas&_SERVICE=default&param=TMEANRAW&minyear=1891&maxyear=2014

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=457773&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_clim_mon_years2014.sas&_SERVICE=default&minyear=1891&maxyear=2014

This data is collected by NOAA weather stations scattered throughout the lower 48 states. (Oddly, there are no NOAA weather stations in Alaska or Hawaii). This one is is located in Snoqualmie Falls, WA which is close to the Seattle area, but relatively free of urban heat island effect.

The temperature minima and maxima very through the years, but don't seem to show any significant correlation with CO2 data presented earlier. The temperature gain seems minimal with generally a flat pattern across the graph.

The second graph shows collection reliability and range of this particular station. Collection started about 1893 until the station shut down in 2010. During the time it was active, it showed good reliability collecting data with only very minor dropouts (which produces no data point in the temperature plot). This is raw temperature data, uncompensated.

The methodology of collection was at first by manually reading the instruments on a daily basis. This was later automated in stages until computerized collection is now done with automatic telemetry to central NOAA offices. Stations like this are often situated at airports or other sites around the nation and help to provide to aircraft pilots and mariners with accurate weather information. The altitude of this station is 439 feet above sea level (ASL).

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=457773&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_boxtclim_mon_yr2014.sas&_SERVICE=default&param=PRECIPRAW&minyear=1891&maxyear=2014

This plot shows precipitation at the same station, as measured by a rain gauge. I similarly shows a fairly even distribution of precipitation. Washington experienced drought years in 1944 and 1978. It is experiencing one this year.

Unfortunately, this site does not produce usable plots that can be directly included here.
Edited on 13-10-2015 00:23
13-10-2015 00:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
trafn wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Partially, but also to impose rules of verification which have been sadly ignored in much of the stuff I see presented.

Okay, so you have a deep rooted need to impose rules on others. Let's take a moment to examine this. First, do you see any similarities between that unresolved inner need and this:




....oh dear, the scotch is all gone.
....remember me when it's all over.
....is that you mother?
....there up in the light?
....i'm coming!


No.
13-10-2015 00:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Into the Night wrote:
I have already presented the data from Mauna Loa. This is the form and support I would expect of any data. Use that as a 'form guide' if you wish, remembering the rules I set up.

Into the Night, I was wondering if you had any suggestion on acquiring global humidity and atmospheric water vapor data to analyze the following.

The claim has been made on this site that:

CO2 causes Global Warming, and...
Global Warming causes increased humidity/water vapor, and ...
Increased humidity/water vapor causes increased precipitation globally.

I'm not sure of the best way to get the kind of data to make a valid analysis of this.

trafn, do you have any thoughts on why increased global humidity/water vapor would make any place drier than it normally is?

Thanks.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2015 01:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I have already presented the data from Mauna Loa. This is the form and support I would expect of any data. Use that as a 'form guide' if you wish, remembering the rules I set up.

Into the Night, I was wondering if you had any suggestion on acquiring global humidity and atmospheric water vapor data to analyze the following.

The claim has been made on this site that:

CO2 causes Global Warming, and...
Global Warming causes increased humidity/water vapor, and ...
Increased humidity/water vapor causes increased precipitation globally.

I'm not sure of the best way to get the kind of data to make a valid analysis of this.

trafn, do you have any thoughts on why increased global humidity/water vapor would make any place drier than it normally is?

Thanks.

Such global data is out of necessity composite data and subject to all the problems of composition I described in the rules. The problem is that it is difficult to determine how the composite was built without looking at the raw data making it up to verify it's authenticity.

The best thing to do is to look at individual data sites and build a composite picture yourself. This takes work, of course, and it means sifting through a lot of data until a compelling argument can be made, but in the end it's worth it.

That's part of the reason I built The Data Mine thread. To bring all this data into one place so it can be compared.
13-10-2015 01:19
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
IBdaMann - Maybe they're making too many martinis. That's what Dean Martin used to always say.

Into the Night - My heart goes out to you. You must suffer on Twitter.


....oh, wait.
....where am I?
....everything hurts.
....and it's so dark.
....there's no light.
....Oh.
....Oh, No!
....I've..
....I've Fallen Down..
....THE DATA MINE!

Edited on 13-10-2015 01:19
13-10-2015 01:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
trafn wrote:
IBdaMann - Maybe they're making too many martinis. That's what Dean Martin used to always say.

Into the Night - My heart goes out to you. You must suffer on Twitter.


....oh, wait.
....where am I?
....everything hurts.
....and it's so dark.
....there's no light.
....Oh.
....Oh, No!
....I've..
....I've Fallen Down..
....THE DATA MINE!


I'm not on Twitter, so no I don't.
13-10-2015 01:43
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Me neither, too many rules on Twitter.
13-10-2015 01:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote: IBdaMann - Maybe they're making too many martinis. That's what Dean Martin used to always say.


That reminds me of the classic bartender's joke where a bartender tells an audience he wants to show them how he makes the world's dryest martini. He pulls out a steel mixer and he says "The first thing I need is some extra sweet orange juice" and he pours a little into the mixer. "Then a little red wine" as he pours a tad in as well. "Then a touch of grenadine and a pinch of sweet-n-sour." He slaps on a strainer, sets an empty martinit glass on the bar and pours...but absolutely nothing comes out of the mixer (it's a visual thing, a trick) and declares "Now that's one dry martini."

I wonder if a bartender could get away with selling "Global Warming" martinis...where some might be drier than normal.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2015 01:58
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - good joke.... very dry!

@Into the Night - alright, all joking aside (dry or wet), we're not gonna take over twelve dozen serialized Vax's or IBM's SAGE and crunch all the world's data in our spare time. I gotta job. I gotta home to take care of. I do this for fun and a few mental back flips. Why don't we start over with some simpler rules:

1. I trust you.
2. I believe you are intelligent.
3. I believe you are well educated.
4. I will listen to the data you present.
5. I will ask for more data when necessary.
6. Most of all, I'm interested in your conclusions.

I think if we both use these rules, then it will save a lot of time and typing, and we can focus on ideas instead of rules and numbers.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 13-10-2015 02:07
13-10-2015 02:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote: Me neither, too many rules on Twitter.

That was a good one. Bonus point.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2015 10:16
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
trafn wrote:
I gotta job. I gotta home to take care of. I do this for fun and a few mental back flips..
So lighten up and cut other posters some slack.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
RE: An apology to Into the Night13-10-2015 16:14
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
My things in college were physical science and science education, abnormal psychology (I wanted to know why I was so fucked up), and predicate logic (the logical analysis of language). Of these, the one that sticks with me the most today is predicate logic. It has made me realize that because all arguments have premises (accepted foundational biases) that even science can never be a perfect KB (knowledge base - TM Microsoft). That's what has lead us down the rabbit hole from "the ether," to atoms, to quarks, and now strings. Sure, a lot of neat applications arise from these kind of pursuits, but there never is a bottom. Even the concept of real, physical solid ground is illusionary, as our planet and all others are floating in space. For practical purposes, it more convenient that we ignore this degree of technicality and accept what "solid" ground we can find, but this is what ultimatley leads us to things like the Titanic, the Challenger and Thalidomide (which recently had an interesting rebirth in cancer chemotherapy).

That's why I place so little value on arguing over someone else's point of view. I'll discuss it, contrast and compare it, but in the end all points of view (mine included) have premises and therefore, are ultimately, with the furthest analysis, a house of cards. That's why I went over the edge when Into the Night posted that litany of rules at the beginning of this thread. I hate to admit it, but I literally laughed for hours last night over the exchange here between he and I. It wasn't until another member finally posted in this thread, sans any criticism, that I finally realized that something wasn't quite right with the whole thing. And then when that other member posted a joke, in what appeared to be an effort to diffuse the exchange between Into the Night and I, I knew I'd unintentionally gone off the deep end.

Into the Night, I hope you haven't taken my posts on his thread too seriously. I know you haven't been on since last night, and given the cryptic brevity of your final posts here, I do hope you are all right.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
13-10-2015 19:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
trafn wrote:
My things in college were physical science and science education, abnormal psychology (I wanted to know why I was so fucked up), and predicate logic (the logical analysis of language). Of these, the one that sticks with me the most today is predicate logic. It has made me realize that because all arguments have premises (accepted foundational biases) that even science can never be a perfect KB (knowledge base - TM Microsoft). That's what has lead us down the rabbit hole from "the ether," to atoms, to quarks, and now strings. Sure, a lot of neat applications arise from these kind of pursuits, but there never is a bottom. Even the concept of real, physical solid ground is illusionary, as our planet and all others are floating in space. For practical purposes, it more convenient that we ignore this degree of technicality and accept what "solid" ground we can find, but this is what ultimatley leads us to things like the Titanic, the Challenger and Thalidomide (which recently had an interesting rebirth in cancer chemotherapy).

That's why I place so little value on arguing over someone else's point of view. I'll discuss it, contrast and compare it, but in the end all points of view (mine included) have premises and therefore, are ultimately, with the furthest analysis, a house of cards. That's why I went over the edge when Into the Night posted that litany of rules at the beginning of this thread. I hate to admit it, but I literally laughed for hours last night over the exchange here between he and I. It wasn't until another member finally posted in this thread, sans any criticism, that I finally realized that something wasn't quite right with the whole thing. And then when that other member posted a joke, in what appeared to be an effort to diffuse the exchange between Into the Night and I, I knew I'd unintentionally gone off the deep end.

Into the Night, I hope you haven't taken my posts on his thread too seriously. I know you haven't been on since last night, and given the cryptic brevity of your final posts here, I do hope you are all right.

Even a foundational bias, as you put it, has premises to go by. What you are describing is the effect of ontology. In brief, how you interpret what you observe in any experiment, or "How do you know what you know?"

It is for this reason I include the rule of being prepared to show the methodology of the data. You should always be prepared to show how the data was collected, by what instrumentation, and it's reliability (rule 3). Thus the effects of ontology from a single observer are spread across many observers. This is why I limit forming conclusions upon the data in the posts (rule 8).
Edited on 13-10-2015 19:41
13-10-2015 22:41
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - Glad to see you back. Guess I'll have to cancel my appearance on The Oprah Show as the Climate-debate.com Killer.

And, yes, it's all about ontology. But no matter how well you document your methodology, you can never totally eliminate uncertainty. In fact, if you plot fallibility (Y axis) against certainty (X axis), over time you end up with an inverted bell curve. The reason is that initially, as certainty increases, you use your improved knowledge base (KB - TM Microsoft) to improve performance. Unfortunately, as you continue increasing certainty, you decrease your doubt which leaves you open to error, thus increasing fallibility. Just ask Thomas Andrews (1873-1912). He ascended toward the god-point at near 100% certainty, which landed him in a watery grave at the age of 39 years old.

All I'm saying is that you could come up with endless rules for the rest of eternity and still not be 100% certain. It's one of our human limitations.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
14-10-2015 00:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - Glad to see you back. Guess I'll have to cancel my appearance on The Oprah Show as the Climate-debate.com Killer.

And, yes, it's all about ontology. But no matter how well you document your methodology, you can never totally eliminate uncertainty. In fact, if you plot fallibility (Y axis) against certainty (X axis), over time you end up with an inverted bell curve. The reason is that initially, as certainty increases, you use your improved knowledge base (KB - TM Microsoft) to improve performance. Unfortunately, as you continue increasing certainty, you decrease your doubt which leaves you open to error, thus increasing fallibility. Just ask Thomas Andrews (1873-1912). He ascended toward the god-point at near 100% certainty, which landed him in a watery grave at the age of 39 years old.

All I'm saying is that you could come up with endless rules for the rest of eternity and still not be 100% certain. It's one of our human limitations.


True, you can never be 100% certain. This is the whole point of science requiring a falsifiable hypothesis for it to get anywhere. It is also the whole point of the fallacy of arguments in ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam). Ontology is the study of why we can look at the same data in two utterly and exclusively different ways. This is why I specify rule 8.
14-10-2015 00:28
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - ah, yes, rule 8.

Of course then you'd have to prove the infallability (100% certainty) of your concept "data."

Do you really want to go there?

(for goodness sake, I think I'm turning into IBdaMann
)


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
14-10-2015 03:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - ah, yes, rule 8.

Of course then you'd have to prove the infallability (100% certainty) of your concept "data."

Do you really want to go there?

(for goodness sake, I think I'm turning into IBdaMann
)


Data exists. There is proof data exists. This is proof by identity. Whether the data is correct is entirely another story.
14-10-2015 09:29
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - yes dear, now don't you worry, of course data exists. It's just that data can never be 100% infallible (i.e. - 100% certain/exact/error free). In fact, here he is now:




The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 14-10-2015 09:30
14-10-2015 09:37
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
trafn wrote:
Just ask Thomas Andrews (1873-1912).
Wouldn't that be a bit difficult?


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
14-10-2015 09:40
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Earthling - of course not, my dear pretty little Snowflake Earthling!

I have his latest GPS coordinates at the bottom of the North Atlantic.

You could look him up and ask him yourself!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
14-10-2015 23:50
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - you posted Mauna Loa Observatory Data at the top of this thread which conforms to your rules. I'd like to discuss:

1. How would you interpret this data (what's its significance in the real world)?

2. To you, how does this data impact questions concerning GHG's, AGW, and M2C2?
Edited on 14-10-2015 23:51
18-10-2015 21:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you posted Mauna Loa Observatory Data at the top of this thread which conforms to your rules. I'd like to discuss:

1. How would you interpret this data (what's its significance in the real world)?

2. To you, how does this data impact questions concerning GHG's, AGW, and M2C2?


I also posted another set of data (unfortunately that site does not allow me to post the actual plots here so I had to use links) concerning the temperature and precipitation pattern near Seattle, WA.

To answer question 1, I note it...that is all. It must be compared with other data.

To answer question 2 (the meat of it). I see no correlation with the temperatures in Seattle to the increase of carbon dioxide. I have examine charts like these all over the CDIAC. Almost everywhere I look I see the same pattern. There just isn't any correlation.

I have found a few CDIAC stations that have anomalies in their data where the pattern suddenly jumps a few degrees in a single year, then follow a similar flat pattern, but that can be attributed to some source of heat nearby affecting that station (like an air conditioner vent).

Nowhere do I find anything like a smooth increase in temperature or average temperature like the carbon dioxide plot shows. This tells me the Mauna Loa observatory data has no impact on AGW (or whatever you call it).
18-10-2015 22:29
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - thank you for your answers. Have you ever considered the possibility that GW is not yet a part of M2C2?
Edited on 18-10-2015 22:34
18-10-2015 22:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - thank you for your answers. Have you ever considered the possibility that GW is not yet a part of M2C2?


Certainly not through the medium of carbon dioxide. Personally, I fail to find a reason for your use of the M2C2 notation. It's custom to you and smacks of Microsoft thinking.
18-10-2015 22:55
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - you wrote It's custom to you. Not sure what you meant, but ok.

Yes, Microsoft, let me tell you a funny little story about them. You know, when IBM was considering which operating system to put into the original PC/PC-XT/PC-AT, they were looking at both DOS and and CPM. There are two versions I know of the story, the first being:

One fateful day in the summer of 1980, three buttoned-down IBMers called on a band of hippie programmers at Digital Research Inc. located in Pacific Grove, Calif. They hoped to discuss licensing DRI's industry-leading operating system, CP/M. Instead, DRI founder Gary Kildall blew off IBM to gallivant around in his airplane, and the frustrated IBMers turned to Gates for their operating system.

In the other version, IBM held a final decision making meeting at which Gates and Kildall were both to be present. That morning, however, Kildall didn't show up cause he had a bad cold, so IBM went with Gates.

Too bad. I always thought CPM was a superior operating system. Our loss. Apples gain.

Now, do you want to hear the story of how IBM became so fabulously rich through their "Golden Screw" strategy?
18-10-2015 23:17
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - as for CO@ and AGW, yes, so far I agree. When I got into this whole field of study back in the 90's, I too had a lot of questions concerning CO2 and GW, the same as you still do today. After all, the temperature increases they were talking about were minuscule (i.e. - 0.xx). Yet, given our history with things like smog and acid rain, I realized that we were pumping incredible volumes of CO2 into the air and that something had to give sooner or later. So I put GW on the back burner and studied it from an end-game point of view (i.e. - regardless of GW or not, where is all this CO2 ultimately taking us). That's when I realized that everyone was putting the cart before the horse. Sure, GW will occur, but we'll all be dead and long gone before it does. Check out my nithane thread for some interesting thoughts on this.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
19-10-2015 01:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you wrote It's custom to you. Not sure what you meant, but ok.

Yes, Microsoft, let me tell you a funny little story about them. You know, when IBM was considering which operating system to put into the original PC/PC-XT/PC-AT, they were looking at both DOS and and CPM. There are two versions I know of the story, the first being:

One fateful day in the summer of 1980, three buttoned-down IBMers called on a band of hippie programmers at Digital Research Inc. located in Pacific Grove, Calif. They hoped to discuss licensing DRI's industry-leading operating system, CP/M. Instead, DRI founder Gary Kildall blew off IBM to gallivant around in his airplane, and the frustrated IBMers turned to Gates for their operating system.

In the other version, IBM held a final decision making meeting at which Gates and Kildall were both to be present. That morning, however, Kildall didn't show up cause he had a bad cold, so IBM went with Gates.

Too bad. I always thought CPM was a superior operating system. Our loss. Apples gain.

Now, do you want to hear the story of how IBM became so fabulously rich through their "Golden Screw" strategy?

The first version of the story is more true, but has important inaccuracies.
First, Gary Kildall created ISIS, the immediate father of CP/M. After leaving Intel, he took ISIS with him and modified it into CP/M, leaving Intel with the ISIS system. Gary DID blow off IBM, but not to gallivant around his airplane. He blew them off because no thought seriously that IBM could successfully enter the personal computer industry. So did a whole lot of other folks, including many at Microsoft.

Bill saw the opportunity when approached by IBM, and he sold them an operating system he didn't have. He knew where to get it though, his friend Tim Paterson, who himself ported CP/M from the Z80 processor to the new 8086 series machines, but who never gave credit to Gary Kildall for the system he transposed.

Tim Paterson did, however, add one thing that CP/M didn't have in the form of subdirectories. Later versions of DOS would finally drop the non-relocatable image format for a minimally relocatable one (even though the 8086 is the only processor so far built that is not OTIS compliant). The new image format instead made use of a flat binary system based on buffering and backpatching techniques.

Paterson liked to sue people. He sued a book author for telling the truth, he sued Bill Gates for 'ripping him off', for a couple of examples. After leaving Microsoft, Tim had a big part in creating Phoenix Technologies (a BIOS manufacturer that's still around), and the BattleBots competition.

Bill, after having successfully 'stolen' DOS for a song, went on to steal Windows and practically every other technology the company sells. Microsoft invented almost none of it.

To be fair, Steve Jobs essentially stole the concept for the Mac as well, from Xerox and Control Data Corp. It was a very incestuous industry in those days.
19-10-2015 01:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5733)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - as for CO@ and AGW, yes, so far I agree. When I got into this whole field of study back in the 90's, I too had a lot of questions concerning CO2 and GW, the same as you still do today. After all, the temperature increases they were talking about were minuscule (i.e. - 0.xx). Yet, given our history with things like smog and acid rain, I realized that we were pumping incredible volumes of CO2 into the air and that something had to give sooner or later. So I put GW on the back burner and studied it from an end-game point of view (i.e. - regardless of GW or not, where is all this CO2 ultimately taking us). That's when I realized that everyone was putting the cart before the horse. Sure, GW will occur, but we'll all be dead and long gone before it does. Check out my nithane thread for some interesting thoughts on this.


I have no questions concerning CO2 and AGW. As far as I have been able to determine, there is no effective correlation between the two at all. That doesn't surprise me, since carbon dioxide is not an energy source. It is only a moderator, and there so little of it.

Smog and acid rain have nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

Smog is caused by nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide that comes from the nitrogen and oxygen in the air in a burn chamber that runs too hot. It's not nearly the problem that it was thanks to EGR systems in cars.

Acid rain was caused by sulfur dioxide that was released from coal burning plants that used sour coal. This was solved by installing scrubbers in smokestacks to essentially 'sweeten' the resulting fumes. This is done by reacting it with slaked lime or similar substances. The result is calcium sulfite, which can be further processed to make gypsum. Such scrubbers actually produce marketable gypsum, which is used to make plasterboard wall panels.
19-10-2015 11:53
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hi Into the Night

Anyone who knows anything about science, will know that correlation and causation do not always go hand in hand see:

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Just because you do not see a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature, it does not mean that they are not linked.
19-10-2015 12:04
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1191)
climate scientist wrote:
Hi Into the Night

Anyone who knows anything about science, will know that correlation and causation do not always go hand in hand see:

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Just because you do not see a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature, it does not mean that they are not linked.


But the onus is on you to show that they are linked in some way.

It is you that is making the positive claim and this requires some sort of evidence based support.
Page 1 of 6123>>>





Join the debate The Data Mine:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Headed For A New Ice Age? Latest Data Says Yes!1505-05-2018 01:44
Ideas of Mine3611-02-2018 20:41
TEMPERATURE DATA released for 20171127-01-2018 22:56
Climate Data 800,000 years18818-11-2017 09:11
Possible the IPCC corrupted data ?4207-10-2017 00:09
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact