tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post1684652414332637245..comments2024-03-28T02:54:46.537-04:00Comments on The TOF Spot: Pointilism and Global WarmingTheOFloinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-19700677806159354942012-05-01T11:42:22.695-04:002012-05-01T11:42:22.695-04:00Outdoorkit,
I was responding in the specific cont...Outdoorkit,<br /><br />I was responding in the specific context of the original post using the temperature of Greenland as a proxy for global temperature, and pointing out that this was as much of a "point" in the data as a 30-year global period. I'm not sure why you think this means I believe all data from Greenland is useless, that global temperatures would not hve an impact on the materials of the Greenland ice cores, or or that the ice cores can't tell us about global conditions. What I did not see in the abstract was that the temperature, specifically, in Greenland was a good proxy for global temperatures. Did I miss that somewhere?<br /><br />I appreciate and respect your bringing evidence to the discussion, by the way.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-49484672290681352312012-05-01T05:40:34.130-04:002012-05-01T05:40:34.130-04:00One Brow, Seriously??
If you knew the slightest th...One Brow, Seriously??<br />If you knew the slightest thing about either past or present world climate change you would know that the entire thing is internally linked, the values from the Greenland ice cores have a very real and direct link to global temperatures, please see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379199000621 (Alley 2012) for an excellent example of how we can look at world temperatures thanks to Greenland ice cores (there are more but that will do for now. Anyone who cannot see a natural change throughout past climates is either not looking at the evidence a tad slow beyond the climate events mentioned we have the 8.2ka event, the Younger Dryas, the 4.8ka event and other not quite so extreme incidents. All of these were Global phenomena but all intimately linked, and more importantly measureable from one place (try typing in google scholar “climate change in the holocene”. i do not deny for one moment that human actions are damaging the environment, nor do i think we should be pumping the amount of CO2 that we are into the environment, what i do KNOW though is that climate change is something far bigger than human interaction, it is a nonstop continues cycle that has been present since the Big Bang, and just because humans decided to drop in on the party does not mean anything is going to change<br />Thank you for your timeOutdoorkithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05653533308612307585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-37496751143647916242012-04-23T16:39:57.171-04:002012-04-23T16:39:57.171-04:00JJBrannon,
I have no problem debating the mislead...JJBrannon,<br /><br />I have no problem debating the misleading aspects of scale. In my first post on the thread, I was pointing out that looking at the temperatures in Greenland were themselves just a point, as opposed to indicative of a global trend, and that it was misleading to indicate otherwise. Outside of that, I'm nort sure where I and TheOFloinn, or you and I, are supposed to disagree on the subject.<br /><br />Subtlety often seems great from the side of the writer. Putting too much burden on some readers leads to misreadings, and occasionally paragraphs of attempted rebuttal based on that misreading. However, the conundrum you perceive comes from equating different sorts of subtlety, making it false.<br /><br />I see no need to say a prediction which relied on a worst-case scenario, when that worst-case scenario did not obtain, is failed.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-36211420012606354912012-04-20T18:44:50.555-04:002012-04-20T18:44:50.555-04:00Since we're not going to debate the meat of th...Since we're not going to debate the meat of the subject -- misleading aspects of scale -- further, let me only address your one persistent perception difficulty.<br /><br /><i>By the way, you only mentioned it in two posts, and only clarified the error4 in th esecond rather while simply repeating the phrase in the first.</i><br /><br />The reference to **cancer** studies was my first obviously too subtle hint in response to your gaffe. You still missed it in your count at this late date.<br /><br />You see my conundrum? If I state a condition for the A of GW that requires the *absolute* non-involvement of natural -- i.e., non-human-caused -- fluctuations and you have difficulty seining through the simplest of evidence before your eyes [such as the existence of three posts instead of two], how am I ever to persuade of less obvious evidence or inferences from them.<br /><br />We obviously must drop the subject.<br /><br />However feel free to send our host, The O'Flainn, a modest check in 16 years when the West Side Highway remains above the Hudson. You may even claim some copies of his scrivenings in compensation. :>)<br /><br />JJBJJBrannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14498338889264671844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-5064792539587368832012-04-20T18:25:04.325-04:002012-04-20T18:25:04.325-04:00Very nice!
JJBVery nice!<br /><br />JJBJJBrannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14498338889264671844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-26394247776139342542012-04-20T12:48:48.470-04:002012-04-20T12:48:48.470-04:00As you wish. I will try to be more circumspect an...As you wish. I will try to be more circumspect an on-topic in the future.<br /><br />JJBrannon,<br /><br />Should you desire to continue this, or discuss aqnything else, feel free to use any post over at my blog to comment upon.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-81118408263879542312012-04-20T10:53:05.417-04:002012-04-20T10:53:05.417-04:00OK. The comments have drifted way too far from th...OK. The comments have drifted way too far from the original post -- which you may recall had to do with the effect of scale on the values plotted. It has become essentially a monologue with responsorials.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-82878280862756431052012-04-20T09:59:23.347-04:002012-04-20T09:59:23.347-04:00JJBannon,
Out of respect for weariness, I will ke...JJBannon,<br /><br />Out of respect for weariness, I will keep this short.<br /><br />My original illustration, while wrong in time scale, did say "crocodiles have not altered significantly..." and used the same phrase regarding humans. I'm not sure why you see that as being different from "gross morphological changes". My entire point was that this type of argument was fallacious. Go back to the post of Apr 13, 2012 03:43 PM and that should be plain. You seem to have gotten twisted up in the number, and began assuming I meant things I certainly did not say.<br /><br />As I said, it took three posts for me realize that, while I had been thinking "smoking and cancer", I had typed "smoking and tobacco". Once my brain made that association, it took some time for me to realize it's error. At least get the error correct. By the way, you only mentioned it in two posts, and only clarified the error4 in th esecond rather while simply repeating the phrase in the first. I don't know if that tendency of mine is a disability or not. I don't feel the need to classify it one waqy or the other. I recognize it and try to keep up good humor about it.<br /><br />Humans are apes. If we talk about how much humans have changed in the past ten million years, comparisons to chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas seem inevitable.<br /><br />Rather than a poster repeating the same thing back at you, you had one reword the error so it was obvious. For example, I could have let you go on for pages about elements of biology that I agree with you about and knew about, having fun at your expense while you continued to proceed on the same ill-founded notion. I could take that typo and use it claim you will believe any rediculoous thing to deny AGW. I prefer not to engage in such tactics. I prefer to find out what people actually mean.<br /><br />So, what is the evolutionary science mistake you think I am making? Hopefully you are not going back to that "more evolved" nonesense.<br /><br />I asked you earlier what would constitute evidence of AGW for you. You did not respond. Dismissing all evidence while presenting no standard is not skepticism.<br /><br />Since I have not said bad engineering alone could not be responsible, I feel no need to defend myself on that point. Since we agree the seas are rising and the islands are littoral, saying the problem is only bad engineering is dismissive of an obvious contributory factor. You made a good case that there is no evidence the current sea rise is connected to recent warming. Why throw bad apples in with good? If AGW is not connected to rising sea levels, then despite the connection of rising sea levels to the problems of Kiribati, AGW would not be connected to those problems via that mechanism.<br /><br />Since I've set standards for what I would regard as a predicition, and they seem relevant to me as to what a prediction should be, I did miss the reference. I'm still not sure why you think it applies. <br /><br />I'm saying your reaction and position is so extreme it makes it difficult to believe you are serious.<br /><br />I am saddened to hear of your physical condition. I wish you well.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-15001064525697514962012-04-20T05:06:12.232-04:002012-04-20T05:06:12.232-04:00Nota bene: above previous post formatting problem...Nota bene: above previous post formatting problems result from the necessary copying & pasting of the severed text.<br /><br />Author is weary and must abide under his respirator for a time. Deleting, reposting, reformatting the new insertion, and republishing seems a Herculean task at this remote time.<br /><br />For the nonce,<br />JJBJJBrannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14498338889264671844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-80425264052001070122012-04-20T04:58:20.067-04:002012-04-20T04:58:20.067-04:00Resume Part II.
If you want to argue rising seas ...Resume Part II.<br /><br /><i>If you want to argue rising seas are not connected to AGW, that's one thing. But to say the problems of Kibarti are not connected to rising seas, but must be bad engineering, is pure nonsense. If the seas are rising, <br /><br />they won't be losing their land.</i> -- One Brow<br /><br />Wow! That was wrought so badly, I'm not sure how to respond. Since there's no reliable evidence of the A in the admitted GW [remember, has been since those giant mammal charcoal barbecue socials 8-10 kya].<br /><br />[I am treating the opening conditional clause of your last sentence in the negative, otherwise it's nonsensical.]<br /><br />If you have so little grasp of the civil engineering of riparian and littoral islands that you believe the sea has to rise for the sand-bar and coral atolls to degrade and wash away, then you have no business posting on the <br /><br />subject at all.<br /><br />Do you have any experience at all growing up around river or barrier islands? I grew up in South Jersey and on the Delmarva Peninsula [aside from globe-trotting in my military-dependent childhood].<br /><br />Go look at what extending one groyne can do to littoral drift or the history of Assateague Island's separation from Fenwick. Then consider the impact of a two-fold increase in population and numerous poorly thought-out <br /><br />civil engineering projects on the Kiribati atolls. One need not multiply entities by positing space tourists to Mayan glyphs any more than one need to posit AGW to account for Kiribati's disastrous land-use development.<br /><br />Do I wonder why I have trouble taking you seriously? I may have left college to try my hand at writing [dumb, no question] but I left a very good engineering school where I studied evolutionary mol-biology/genetics and <br /><br />biophysics/biomeidcal engineering. I also had worked for my uncle, an electrical engineer and master electrician, since I was twelve so I have a smattering of how things actually function in the world than those closeted <br /><br />academics who have become smitten by their computer models. <br /><br />Mens et manus.<br /><br />Scotland? No, I was trained in evolutionary biology by Salvador Luria, so that excludes me. [My paternal family -- a bunch of mongrels all -- hail from West Africa. I have the papers to demonstrate it.] Did you miss the <br /><br />gently-ticking logical fallacy allusion or are you simply resorting to arch?<br /><br />EAP needs no eponymous Internet Law. I see this Nathan upstart is being credited with a reformulation of Schwarz's Caveat. My exposure to the Internet began in 1977. I say three times: there's only one Poe worthy of <br /><br />the mononym.<br /><br />I have to wonder why you would want to suggest that I'm edging into Nathan Poe territory since his warning is against earnest advocates treating sarcastic, non-serious posters as seriously offering their contentions.<br /><br />Are you, then, describing yourself as not seriously in support of AGW and all your posts here merely a provocative , satirical jest? Because I'm certainly earnest in what I have written, even if leavened with ironic humor <br /><br />and derision against idiocy.<br /><br />JJBJJBrannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14498338889264671844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-26522870231913101332012-04-20T04:57:03.730-04:002012-04-20T04:57:03.730-04:00How can you be wrong on nearly everything? And wh...How can you be wrong on nearly everything? And why do you persist in moving goal-posts?<br /><br />You did not state "dramatic changes" originally and I specifically dismissed "gross morphological changes" as a minor diversionary matter from someone who apparently lacks an adequate grounding in evolutionary biology. That was the whole point of the example of Gould's <i>Cerion</i> land-snails. <br /><br />Jeesh, you're slow on the uptake! Three posts to figure out that no one denied a causal link between smoking and tobacco and now nearly a dozen exchanges where you still haven't learned the lesson regarding evolutionary development.<br /><br />Goalpost move: One Brow set the original terms between modern crocs and **humans**, not apes.<br /><br />Humans are a monoculture species, one of the most genetically uniform species known, arising from at least one founder-effect bottleneck in the last 100 k-years. There are very good reasons why I've been slamming you on framing your question in such a naive and misleading fashion, which I've addressed. The most important is that your little diversion was exactly that: non-germane to my example of single-point CO2 measurements. It's a tactic of Creationists and Holocaust deniers to reframe the issue of hand.<br /><br />When I handed Duane Gish his head during a radio debate, it was only after he ginsued a couple of other evolutionary science proponents with his patented chop & dodge tactics. I simply continued to hammer on the same point, revealing his ignorance of modern molecular biology, genetics, and taxonomy, reminding the audience that the man had done no science since before the Moon landing.<br /><br />No, it didn't take me three posts of someone calling it to my attention to see that the "mm" I meant to type -- which was in both cases preserved in the units of the mean rate, <i><b>if an honest person were to admit to same</b></i> -- instead of the "m" that I typed.<br /><br />I have not corrected every jot and tittle of your typos, One Brow: I specifically drew attention to a critical word substitution you persistently employed that underscored a sloppy, non-critical fashion of reflex thought-processes germane to the topic at hand -- weighing evidence.<br /><br />Of course, if you're afflicted with some cognitive disorder that makes you prone to associated-word substitutions as I am afflicted with a degenerative muscle disease of the flexor muscles of my forearms that routinely scrambles my typing by stuttering, transposed, and elided letters, then naturally I'll give you a pass for not being able to read my first two posts correcting you on the smoking gaffe.<br /><br />The difference -- when you finally woke to the fact [with sheepish good grace] that I was addressing something significant regarding the smoking snafu and still have not quite grasped over your prolonged evolutionary science mistake -- between my actual and your hypothetical affliction is that you routinely ignore when you are flat out wrong and I at first response check if I am.<br /><br />End Part I. [Length error requires breaking here.]<br /><br />JJBJJBrannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14498338889264671844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-21997177995907073952012-04-20T03:33:11.488-04:002012-04-20T03:33:11.488-04:00Leave it to the French Hard Left to have a better ...Leave it to the French Hard Left to have a better description of the problem than a prescription for a solution: <br /><br />“There is no “environmental catastrophe.” The catastrophe is the environment itself. The environment is what’s left to man after he’s lost everything. Those who live in a neighbourhood, a street, a valley, a war zone, a workshop – they don’t have an “environment”; they move through a world peopled by presences, dangers, friends, enemies, moments of life and death, all kinds of beings. Such a world has its own consistency, which varies according to the intensity and quality of the ties attaching us to all of these beings, to all of these places. It’s only us, the children of the final dispossession, exiles of the final hour – the ones who come into the world in concrete cubes, pick our fruits at the supermarket, and watch for an echo of the world on television – only we get to have an environment…<br /><br />What has congealed as an environment is a relationship to the world based on management, which is to say, on estrangement. A relationship to the world wherein we’re not made up just as much of the rustling trees, the smell of frying oil in the building, running water, the hubbub of schoolrooms, the mugginess of summer evenings. A relationship to the world where there is me and then my environment, surrounding me but never really constituting me. We have become neighbours in a planetary co-op owners’ board meeting. It’s difficult to imagine a more complete hell.” – <br /><br />L’Insurrection Qui Vient<br /><br />This "problem" gave up trying to be scientific long, long ago. Welcome to the Humanities Department.Aimè Foinprèhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04790443918098227050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-71902890418955990272012-04-19T22:28:51.134-04:002012-04-19T22:28:51.134-04:00JJBrannon,
What is my "kind of AGW hysteria&...JJBrannon,<br /><br />What is my "kind of AGW hysteria"? Is it related to what you have claimed is my understanding of evolution, or is it based on what I actually think?<br /><br />Do you think Dr. Deming was correct? Are we no longer warming since 2008? Or, did Dr. Deming try to use a two-year trend to claim warming was over? Do you support that usage?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-41879948995298783162012-04-19T21:49:26.940-04:002012-04-19T21:49:26.940-04:00I keep returning to the crocodiles because you con...<i>I keep returning to the crocodiles because you continue to get the lesson wrong: humans cannot not be said to be any more evolved than crocs over the same period, except in a negligible way.</i><br /><br />What does that have to do with one undergoing more dramatic physical changes than the other in the past 10 million years? Why would I say anything is more evolved than any other thing on that basis? Both are very well evolved for their environments. You are either not making your point clear, or you are arguing against some strawman I never offered.<br /><br />Crocodiles diversified into species. Apes diversified into genera. Am I really supposed to believe that crocodiles diversified more? <br /><br />Am I supposed to equate the mistaking mis-association of a specific phrase with some unwillingness to accept evidence? Is that worse than a claim the sea used to be 4km below what it is now 7000ya, as opposed to about 4m? I mean, should I be using that as evidence that you are so partisan you will throw up ridiculous numbers, or do we give each other the benefit of the doubt regarding such things? <br /><br />If you want to argue rising seas are not connected to AGW, that's one thing. But to say the problems of Kibarti are not connected to rising seas, but must be bad engineering, is pure nonsense. If the seas are rising, they won't be losing their land. <br /><br />I didn't know you were from Scotland.<br /><br />Edgar Allen Poe has no internet laws named after him. Please do try to learn to apply context.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-2714386865163045942012-04-19T21:05:37.262-04:002012-04-19T21:05:37.262-04:00The O'Flainn, The O'Floinn.
Sounds the sa...The O'Flainn, The O'Floinn.<br /><br />Sounds the same to me.<br /><br />I keep returning to the crocodiles because you continue to get the lesson wrong: humans cannot not be said to be any more evolved than crocs over the same period, except in a negligible way. In fact, modern crocs demonstrate more diversity from that arbitrary 10 million year-ago mark than humans from that same start. Again, you keep making the same ignorant error regarding the biology because of the blinders you where to evidence. Crocs diversified, humans became a monoculture. Clearly you weren't trained as an evolutionary biologist.<br /><br />Only by my third post mentioning it, the last quite emphatically, did you realize that you had insisted that people had denied a causal link between smoking and tobacco <b><i>and that example of the evidence-blinders you wear was incontrovertible!</i></b><br /><br />To your credit, you acknowledge the touch, but you failed to learn the lesson that you are inclined to such Mr. Magoo scrunched-eyesight. [At least here on this board.]<br /><br />Sure, 4" +/- 0.8". The seas have risen, on average ~4000 m since the lingering end of the last age about 7000 ya [mean ~0.6 mm/y] and ~1000 m in the last 4000 y [mean ~0.25 mm/y], so the roller coaster slowed a bit a while back and is speeding up a bit now. <br /><br />Here's the thing. The rate from 8 kya to 7 kya was 10.0 mm/yr and again this was not due to the Megatheria and Giant Ground Sloth charcoal barbecue socials.<br /><br />Recall: I have no prejudice against global warming. What I discount is that the AGW has any kind of persuasive evidence that it's NOT Nature in charge but rather primarily a product of mankind.<br /><br />So Kiribati's flooding is not any kind of good evidence to AGW. It was improper [and purely an emotional appeal] for you to include it. The only man-made cause one can unambiguously attribute to the need to relocate the population are the 200% increase in people from 1950 to 2010 [33 kp to 99 kp] who chose to live on the sandbars after they degraded their stability by over-development and poor civil-engineering.<br /><br />Yes, I'll bite and retrodict that from 1988 until 2012, the CO2 level wasn't going to double nor will it have doubled from 1988 to 2048 and I base it on the grounds -- barring broadly-engaged nuclear conflict or asteroid-colliding cataclysm -- that only a deluded individual [likely from Scotland] bereft of any **real** comprehension of biology would thinks so.<br /><br />Edgar Allan Poe is the only Poe worth the single eponym. Please do try to muster some distinction.<br /><br />JJBJJBrannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14498338889264671844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-64028583002532520322012-04-19T19:32:45.786-04:002012-04-19T19:32:45.786-04:00Well, I've never met Nathan Poe, so I'll t...Well, I've never met Nathan Poe, so I'll take your word for it.<br /><br />Kiribati is not on the West Side Highway, but it is flooding, so flooding does exist. Or, are you denying sea levels has risen some 3-4 inches in the last 60 years, and parts of Kiribati are extremely flat and near sea level? I agree that sandspits can sink even when the seas are not rising, but the seas are rising, sandspit or not.<br /><br /><i>While the press has often misquoted me, my experience is that when I have said a "worst likely case is A", the journalist will then ask, "What would the consequences be in worst likely case A?"</i><br /><br />So, extrapolating, Hansen has just laid out a doubling of CO2 in the next 40 years as a worst case scenario, and is responding to that question.<br /><br />Just out of curiousity: when a reporter asked you for a result fo the worst-case scenario, and then the worst case did not happen so your predictions based on that did not happen, was that a failed prediction on your part? Did make what you said wrong? I would not say it was wrong, I would say it was moot. I wonder if you hold yourself to the same standard you are holding Hansen to. Although, when you whined about being misquoted, that was a pretty good clue. When Hansen make a speculation based on a worst-case scenario, it's a geniune prediction that can be right or wrong. When you make a speculation based on a worst-case scenario, it's you being taken out of context. At lest, that's how you are coming across.<br /><br />What did Hansen suggest as the magnitude of the likelihood regarding the doubling of CO2 levels? Are you saying there was zero chance CO2 could have doubled between 1988 and 2028? On what do you base that determination?<br /><br />Your attempts to portray me as being in denial are amusing. If this were a public debate, that would be a great tactic, becasue you are again focusing on the person, not the evidence. I don't mind. I'll just keep going back to the evidence. For example, the evidence that Hansen made various predictions dependent on not only CO2 levels, but also other events such as volcano eruptions, all of which has been documented.<br /><br />Being based off of a single report, the internent myth can't be precise (you need multiple attempts at a target for precision), and was as accuate as any two-fold error missing a worst-case precondition can be (not at all). See TheOFloinn's post on precision and accuracy.<br /><br />The first time you corrected me on crocodiles, I reduced the time frame from 100 million to 10 million years, which was more than enough to illustrate the example. I acknowledged the error, accepted the correction, and avoided making that mistake again. It's interesting how you feel to the need to bring it up repeatedly. It's almost as if you are right so seldom you need to savor every little victory, long after others would have stopped chewing. However, that really has nothing to do with this discussion, or who is corect about what Hansen did or did not predict.<br /><br />If we agree it was not a scientific prediction, then why offer it as an example of scientific predictions from climate scientists?<br /><br />While it's not my handle, but I notice you seem to consistently type "The O'Flainn" or something similar, when our hosts handle is "TheOFloinn". Is that deliberate?<br /><br />I only buy evidence. Why should I hand that back?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-33875746184572682502012-04-19T17:34:57.214-04:002012-04-19T17:34:57.214-04:00Yes, I believe that it may be the same Dr. Deming....Yes, I believe that it may be the same Dr. Deming.<br /><br />Now when will everyone realize that there's no basis for your kind of AGW hysteria and that the AGW-Elvis has left the building over a decade ago.<br /><br />JJBJJBrannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14498338889264671844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-1513785607492656402012-04-19T17:31:17.641-04:002012-04-19T17:31:17.641-04:00Been a fan of Poe for years. Brilliant man.
The ...Been a fan of Poe for years. Brilliant man.<br /><br />The inhabitants of Kiribati do not reside on the West Side Highway.<br /><br />Your end-quote and its source illustrates your problem with dealing with partisans and evidence.<br /><br />While the press has often misquoted me, my experience is that when I have said a "worst likely case is A", the journalist will then ask, "What would the consequences be in worst likely case A?"<br /><br />In other words, for someone who seems to be purposely oblivious to motives except when you want to "O-so-delicately" derogate skeptics, when an interviewee is asked to speculate on circumstances, typically the interviewer is following up on the interviewer's last previous remarks.<br /><br />Plainly, then, since you're practicing your obtuse, Hansen suggested the likelihood of CO2 doubling, leading to the graphic implications Reiss could use for his story. [Again, this is a very strong inference -- which is why I stated that I had not read the context of Reiss' books].<br /><br />Here's Hansen saying much the same sort of thing in another interview:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9KzeQJZUEw&feature=player_embedded<br /><br />It's not a myth of any sort that Hansen made the prediction.<br /><br />Yes, you don't understand "precision" and "accuracy" -- when it's suiting your purpose of being deliberately obtuse -- because the Internet report is an imprecise yet fairly accurate rendition of Hansen's intent.<br /><br />["O, but it wasn't a **scientific** prediction!" I hear you protest. Of course, it wasn't, One Brow. That's what we've been saying all along. That is irrelevant to when you asked The O'Flainn for a prediction the warmists have made that's been refuted. Instead of accepting that Hansen -- one of the main warmists fiddling with the key data -- is an extremist with an agenda demonstratively false in its direction, you raise your Denial Shield˜™ and move the goal-posts.]<br /><br />You falsified the crocodile example -- not the making up the numbers, which was an example of being imprecise -- but the **inaccurate** supposed "fact" that crocodiles haven't evolved in that time when I stated twice that by the best modern science has determined they had. Instead, you blithely whistled past your mistake.<br /><br />The difference between "speculation" and "prediction" is the former doesn't cause one to lose one's paid position doing harm to national space data.<br /><br />It's always only speculation when one is wrong and "prophetic warning" when one stumbles into being right for the wrong reasons.<br /><br />Kiribati is sinking because of bad civil engineering projects going back over 150 years. They're littoral atolls. Ever seen channel records from the Delmarva/NJ littoral islands going back 4 centuries? Littoral islands shift!<br /><br />It doesn't take global-warming to sink a sandspit [especially when idiots build houses over leaching and settling backfills].<br /><br />You've been sold a bill of goods, One Brow. Why don't you demand your money back from those who hustled you?<br /><br />JJB<br /><br /><br />JJBJJBrannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14498338889264671844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-71556951634519853272012-04-19T16:12:11.434-04:002012-04-19T16:12:11.434-04:00JJBrannon,
You are in danger of enteriing Poe ter...JJBrannon,<br /><br />You are in danger of enteriing Poe territory.<br /><br />Hansen has consistently discussed different levels of CO2 being possible based on different actions and events that may or may not occurred. For example, his Congressional testimoney where he presented three different CO2 scenarios based on various actions and events. To pretend there is a single prediciton about a specific CO2 level goes beyond reasonable disagreement.<br /><br />As for "no flooding", perhaps you tell that to the inhabitants of Kirbati?<br /><br />Why you think I confused accuacy and precision, I'm not sure. Based on your other posts, I think it may have little to do with what I posted.<br /><br />I'll end with a quote from the site, and see if you understand the nature of an implication and what the failure of a hypothesis means, the difference between speculation and prediciton, and again, if I applied similar tactics to a scientist like Spencer, whether would you find them acceptable.<br /><br /><i>Bob Reiss reports the conversation as follows:<br /><br />"When I interviewed James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2.</i>One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-45922447065455939152012-04-19T00:37:48.522-04:002012-04-19T00:37:48.522-04:00If it's not an accurate representation of what...<i>If it's not an accurate representation of what Hansen said, and it wasn't a scientific prediciton of Hansen to begin with, the notion of it being a prediciton of Hansen is a myth, regardless of what Reiss told a reporter.</i><br /><br />How is it not an accurate? It's not *precise* but we've observed you make that mistake of distinction previously.<br /><br />The only thing Reiss misreports from the 1988 interview of Hansen to the Salon journalist in 1998 is the scale is 1 decade rather than 3 in the future. Core of prediction =/= myth. Relatively small change of scale =/= myth.<br /><br />The thing Reiss omits in conveying the story to the Salon writer degrades rather than enhances Hansen's ability to predict which tacitly [I haven't read Reiss's book] includes <b>from Hansen's work it's reasonable to assume</b> that a doubling of CO2 will occur within the time-frame and lead to the Westside Highway flooding. <br /><br />Events only confirm that in 2012 -- 24 years into the 40 year span of Hansen's actual, personally affirmed prediction -- a bare, nearly-linear rise in atmospheric CO2 of ~9%. Also, no flooding.<br /><br />Why are you, One Brow, **denying** -- in the face of all evidence -- that Hansen said what he emphatically said he said. Why must you reduce it to "an Internet myth".<br /><br />By your very lights, by test of substitution, you're practicing denialism.<br /><br />One Brow: "This is no scholastic quibble over 10 or 5 mega-deaths <b>[40 or 20 years]</b>. There is no Holocaust <b>[Hansen prediction including CO2 doubling & Westside Highway flooding]</b>, period. It's a myth, I say! A myth propagated by money-grubbing, self-serving, unctuous Jews <b>[oil companies]</b> and their gulled or paid shills!"<br /><br />Boy, did that test by substitution FAIL in flames.<br /><br />Are you sure you want to insist that it's an "Internet myth", One Brow? That insistence groups you with a very unsavory crowd.<br /><br /><br />JJBJJBrannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14498338889264671844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-295124608606516992012-04-17T10:04:01.280-04:002012-04-17T10:04:01.280-04:00TheOFloinn,
Since you haven't come up with an...TheOFloinn,<br /><br />Since you haven't come up with an acceptable-to-you alternative, and haven't corrected other when they used the term, I'll just go back to using "denialism".One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-46773252602492581542012-04-17T10:00:20.994-04:002012-04-17T10:00:20.994-04:00JJBrannon,
Naturally, it was about how they were ...JJBrannon,<br /><br />Naturally, it was about how they were refuted. If they had been confirmed, would it have been news? Prior results routinely get confirmed, and occasionally refuted.<br /><br />Throwing up questions of benefit means little. Demonstrating actual benefit would be more meaningful. Yes, it was an emotional screed, regardless of contents.<br /><br />Yes, I'm aware of Climategate. I've also read about all the investigations into Climategate by various officals, many of which were opposed to acknowledging AGW, that nonetheless said no wrongdoing occurred. The only reason to use Climategate is to make the discussion about people, not evidence, and even then it doesn't work.<br /><br />I agree that relying on bad informaiton about the melting Himilayan glaciers was poor science. However, it did not come from climate models.<br /><br />When I called the prediction a myth, I linked to a source that reported the actual prediction. When an actual 78-inch lumberjack fells a tree quickly, that a story. When someone says the lumberjack was 120 inches tall and it took one blow, that's a tale. When the tale gets repeated by others and becomes part of a collective mindset, that's a myth.<br /><br />Since Hansen's comment did not mention a rate in increase for CO2 or any other mollifying conditions, it's basically unfulfillable and unrefutable. Even if the West Side Highway is covered, it won't make Hansen correct. Conversely, if it is not covered, it won't make him wrong.<br /><br />I will happily admit again I was wrong about crocodilian evolution. Give me a number of time that will satisfy you, and I can get that out of the way in post, instead of doing over multiple posts. <br /><br />I did address the use of a single-staion monitoring in my Apr 16, 2012 06:58 AM comment.<br /><br />I have no doubt adding in the complexities of glaciation willl be a worthy effort.<br /><br />As I have said, refuting one paper or method doesn't refute all of climate science, anymore than refuting some papers on cancer research means chemotherapy is now useless.<br /><br />I understand the error bars on past temperatures are quite large.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-84866284978829375462012-04-16T21:26:28.647-04:002012-04-16T21:26:28.647-04:00The same Dr. Deming that said global warming was &...The same Dr. Deming that said global warming was "officially over" in 2008?<br /><br />Did he publish the email from the major researcher? Name the NPR reporter?<br /><br />Why would a temperature increase in North America during the industrial age jeopardize Deming's career? Lindzen has been just as vocal, has his career (as opposed to reputation) been damaged?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-15187427060002275432012-04-16T21:19:30.763-04:002012-04-16T21:19:30.763-04:00One Brow it is very difficult to discuss matters w...One Brow it is very difficult to discuss matters with when you turn a blind eye to the evidence before you.<br /><br />The article about the study was not on how widely accepted landmark papers "were questioned" but how landmark papers were **refuted**.<br /><br />Thank you for when I ask cui bono, you dismiss it as an emotional screed. You're the one who originally alluded to a minority distorting -- I won't contend "falsifying" -- the evidence for money's sake. You're right -- except it's the pro-AGW crowd who are writing the grants for the researchers to change public policy in an unsustainable, racist manner.<br /><br />Are you even aware of Climategate?<br /><br />You asked for falsifying predictions and we have the IPCC/UN report on the bareback Himalayas. No such phenomenon as described is happening. The meltback was minimal. The latest report is that the glaciers are growing.<br /><br />http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/15/11212166-bucking-trend-some-himalayan-glaciers-are-actually-growing?lite<br /><br />Shrinking Arctic ice? What about the increasing Antarctic ice?<br /><br />Where's your admission that the Hansen prediction was not a "myth" [or unicorn] as you wrongly stated, but that the time-scale was misreported by the original journalist?<br /><br />Where's your answer to my question about how far we've progressed in the 24 years of the 40 toward the inundation of the West Side Highway?<br /><br />Do you intend to acknowledge that you were wrong about crocodilian evolution and apologize for "making up numbers out of thin air"?<br /><br />Do you intend to address the congruence of a representative single-station monitoring model such as Mauna Loa with that of the Greenland ice-core?<br /><br />[The interesting thing admitted in the glacier article was that glaciation was much more variable and complex than climate scientists had allowed for in their models.]<br /><br />Why isn't the cancer paper comparable to AGW warming when the recent [last decade] refutations of Hansen's **landmark** hockey-stick by: 1] identification of bad calculation software revealing the majority of the top ten warmest years were during the Oklahoma Dust Bowl era; 2] refutation of the 10 [or 12] proxy trees by the other 100 or so non-cherry picked [by Biffra]; 3] ocean temperatures, after correcting for the change in sampling procedures [e.g., wooden vs metal buckets] lower than land temperatures; 4] the cherry-picking of Australian weather monitoring stations for only the highest results; 5] the number of confirmation of urban heat-sink monitoring stations vs. earlier rural stations?<br /><br />Around the turn of the century, I sent Flynn the Friis-Christensen graph. More recent work about the magnetic currents in the Sun as they apply to sunspots and effective energy output with its effect on upper atmospheric particle formation has provided more causal mechanism rigor to the correlation.<br /><br />However, when early graphs of the Hockey-stick were issued, they included temperature swamping error bars. A mathematically-educated person could draw just about any line one wanted through those. <br /><br />Central tendency lines can induce a form of highway hypnosis [part of my missing post] where people become obsessed with the symbolic demarcated median and lose sight of the reality of the road.<br /><br />Which illusion The O'Flainn sought to discuss with his journal entry.<br /><br />JJBJJBrannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14498338889264671844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-840503184647660542012-04-16T18:26:19.963-04:002012-04-16T18:26:19.963-04:00It is difficult to know the temperature of the ear...It is difficult to know the temperature of the earth. Where does one stick the thermometer? <br /><br />The email was received by David Deming shortly after he published a paper in which he determined that borehole temps for North America showed increased temperatures over the previous 100/150 years. At the time, he remained anonymous, fearing repercussions on his career, but mentioned it to Lindtzen, who wrote about the stifling effect on free inquiry of this institutional fear. Later, his identity was revealed. <br /><br /><i> In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal <b>Science.</b> In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.<br /><br />I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in <b>Science</b> was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." ....<br /><br />In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph.<br /><br />Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.<br /><br />-- Statement of Dr. David Deming, geophysicist, Univ. of Okla.<br />U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing Statements<br />Date: 12/06/2006</i>TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.com