rushmc 23 #76 January 23, 2009 Did you get a chance to read the link I posted? Like WOW, I did not see that one coming!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #77 January 23, 2009 Quote Had their calculation methodology showed no warming or showed net cooling then I also think they would have either: (1) not released the results; (2) limited their results to West Antarctica and the Peninsula; or (3) tweaked the calculations. I appreciate the time you've spent on this, but the quote above implies that you assume a bias and then go looking for it. Kind of what you accuse the scientists of doing. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #78 January 23, 2009 QuoteQuote Had their calculation methodology showed no warming or showed net cooling then I also think they would have either: (1) not released the results; (2) limited their results to West Antarctica and the Peninsula; or (3) tweaked the calculations. I appreciate the time you've spent on this, but the quote above implies that you assume a bias and then go looking for it. Kind of what you accuse the scientists of doing. The problem is these studies aren't blind and thus are likely influenced by observer bias."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #79 January 23, 2009 QuoteThis is an intereting perspective http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true Marc - are you going to apply the same standard you advocate for other pieces to that one? Where's the experimental data? What's the method? Is there evidence of deceit in the conclusions? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #80 January 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteThis is an intereting perspective http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true Marc - are you going to apply the same standard you advocate for other pieces to that one? Where's the experimental data? What's the method? Is there evidence of deceit in the conclusions? VR/Marg I was not applying anything to this article. I constantly post what I read (if I find it interesting wether I agree with it or not. ) I really do not know what to think of this one. I mean, if he is correct, then all our attentions and efforts should be aimed at how to survive as opposed to remidies. I know this was an interview and opinion piece. I posted so others would see it. I have not yet googled this person so I know little about him. If I was confusing in my post, sorry."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #81 January 23, 2009 QuoteThis is an intereting perspective http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true That is an idiotic perspective. After all ... QuoteThe reason is we would not find enough food ... ... is idiotic since plants thrive on carbon dioxide and a warmer climate would produce a longer growing period."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #82 January 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteThis is an intereting perspective http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-last-chance-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true That is an idiotic perspective. After all ... QuoteThe reason is we would not find enough food ... ... is idiotic since plants thrive on carbon dioxide and a warmer climate would produce a longer growing period. My initial take on this article was the defeatist attitude. It is too late, it is over. I found it interesting because it goes against the global taxation and cap and trade pushers. I think he will get trashed for his stance, not because he anti man made global warming but, for his stance that would take money and power from those advocating the changes"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #83 January 23, 2009 Double blind studies are appropriate when the subjects could potentially be influenced by the observers. The temperature at a weather station is unlikely to go up because it subconsciously thinks the scientist wants it to. "Hard" science does not use the double blind method, it is not necessary. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #84 January 23, 2009 QuoteDouble blind studies are appropriate when the subjects could potentially be influenced by the observers. The temperature at a weather station is unlikely to go up because it subconsciously thinks the scientist wants it to. "Hard" science does not use the double blind method, it is not necessary. But this isn't "hard" science since the observers are manipulating the temperature readings."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #85 January 23, 2009 Of course it implies bias. Mann, one of the coauthors, was pretty damned explicit in his bias! His quote about "contrarians" hanging on to Antarctica getting colder seems to give a pretty good idea about the author's existing bias. The study's authors, however, have based their calculations upon satellite data. The supplier of the TIR says the data has a 2-3 degree margin of error. Thus, a .5 degree variance is, in my own personal opinion, ALMOST useless. A finding of a 3.5 degree increase? That's outside of the margin of error. I also note that in my opinion, the closer you get to the margin of error the more weight something deserves. While not conclusive, a showing of a net warming of 2.5 degreed would have much more weight. As it is, however, under this methodology and if warming remains consistent then they would be able to prove it convincingly in about 2250 to 2270. (I suspect that 100 year data will be available within 100 years.) My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #86 January 23, 2009 The letter refers to adjustments being made and justifications for same. They point to "confidence." These are subjective. As a note - I am really harping on the underlying margin of error. It was not mentioned in the letter. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #87 January 23, 2009 Um, where did you get that? lawrocket only said that he believes they are manipulating the margins, not the temperature readings. And how exactly, do you propose a double-blind study in cases like this? It is nonsense. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #88 January 23, 2009 Quote The problem is these studies aren't blind and thus are likely influenced by observer bias. Quote Double blind studies are appropriate when the subjects could potentially be influenced by the observers. The temperature at a weather station is unlikely to go up because it subconsciously thinks the scientist wants it to. "Hard" science does not use the double blind method, it is not necessary. What Dan said + additionally in order to do a double-blind study we need a second system - 2nd planet or minimally 2nd Antartica. That's the 2nd part of "double." There is a school of thought called "post modern deconstructionalism." About 10 years ago the post-modernists took the theoretical ideas and extended them beyond the limits of the social science theory, which was originally developed in the 1950s for critiquing literature and culture. So about 10 years, these folks started talking about deconstructing experimental science. Now if one is looking at the practice of science by humas, e.g., the classic example is discussed the books: The Mismeasure of Man, one can find where greed, cultural assumptions, and other human biases have impacted the conclusions to which humans came. What became problematic was when the postmodernists started trying to apply it to physical science data. They began to challenge the objectivity of everything. Eventually these folks invoked superficial notions on quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and string theory. And they started pontificating (intentional choice of word) about the ‘subjectivity’ of science. One can find examples (too many im-ever-ho) of the intentional mis-use of science for profit, greed, or harm … but that’s the humans not the data and not science. This ‘subjectivity of science’ argument exploded (metaphorically) in their faces when an intentionally farcical article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," by another well-regarded, award-winning physicist, Prof Alan D. Sokol (NYU), was published in the leading cultural studies journal with such absurdities such as "pi is an integer.” It would be curious to do a case study comparison on the postmoderninsts proponents and detractors and those involved in the anthropogenic climate change debates. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #89 January 23, 2009 QuoteUm, where did you get that? lawrocket only said that he believes they are manipulating the margins, not the temperature readings. Not all the equipment gives the same temperature readings so they are adjusting the temperature readings for some equipment. Also, they are estimating for missing temperature readings."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #90 January 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe problem is these studies aren't blind and thus are likely influenced by observer bias. Double blind studies are appropriate when the subjects could potentially be influenced by the observers. The temperature at a weather station is unlikely to go up because it subconsciously thinks the scientist wants it to. "Hard" science does not use the double blind method, it is not necessary. What Dan said + additionally in order to do a double-blind study we need a second system - 2nd planet or minimally 2nd Antartica. That's the 2nd part of "double." The link was not to suggest the need for double-blind studies. The link was to suggest that studies that aren't blind are prone to bias. As has already been stated, the observers were responsible for estimating missing data and adjusting data when they believed the data from the equipment was incorrect. Thus, any bias of the observers would likely be in the data and affect the study ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #91 January 23, 2009 QuoteThe link was not to suggest the need for double-blind studies. Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. QuoteThe link was to suggest that studies that aren't blind are prone to bias. On what basis do you make that suggestion that studies that aren't blind are prone to bias? How is temperature a subjective variable? QuoteAs has already been stated, the observers were responsible for estimating missing data and adjusting data when they believed the data from the equipment was incorrect. Thus, any bias of the observers would likely be in the data and affect the study ... While I've sent the the Nature paper & supplementary data to one person, I haven't read it. (You may have your own method of accessing it.) Have you? I'm estimating that the observors used validated models. What you're describing would have rejected. If the interpolation is not both validated and reasonable within constraints of known science, it's not included. It's not about "belief" or dis-belief. If the authors selectively excluding data because it the validated model generated results that they didn't like or they wanted to get a specific result, that would be bias. (Ironically, that was what McIntyre and Ross McKitrick did it their challenge of Mann's method.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #92 January 23, 2009 QuoteUm, where did you get that? lawrocket only said that he believes they are manipulating the margins, not the temperature readings. And how exactly, do you propose a double-blind study in cases like this? It is nonsense. No. I don't accuse them of "manipulating" the margins. They provide margins for their work (interestingly, a couple of the margins for their work are greater than the measured change). I am saying they don't "address" the underlying margin for the satellite measurements. Even my GPS tells me I'm within 3 meters. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #93 January 23, 2009 Marc.. have you ever considered digital media... The old record player seems to be skipping again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #94 January 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteUm, where did you get that? lawrocket only said that he believes they are manipulating the margins, not the temperature readings. And how exactly, do you propose a double-blind study in cases like this? It is nonsense. No. I don't accuse them of "manipulating" the margins. They provide margins for their work (interestingly, a couple of the margins for their work are greater than the measured change). I am saying they don't "address" the underlying margin for the satellite measurements. Even my GPS tells me I'm within 3 meters. Does your GPS, with its margin of error on absolute position, ever tell you your going in the opposite direction to the way you ARE going? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #95 January 23, 2009 I haven't seen that happen. I have seen it tell me that it is moving when it is not. Or that it is not moving when it is. The latter are generally slight movements. The GPS in my car also give elevation, which can vary by ten feet just stopped at an intersection. But if it tells me my trend over the last five hours is to have moved six inches at an azimuth of 314.2, I would have some options: 1) Accept the truth; 2) Presume it to be correct, unless I can find evidence to overcome that presumption; 3) Presume it to be incorrect ,unless I can find evidence to overcome that presumption; or 4) Accept it as incorrect. Now, it is a given that the margin of error of the GPS is 3 meters - this is in absolute terms. It means that it gives my location, plus of minus 3 meters in any direction. On the other hand, I accept that a "margin of error" is less problematic when looking for a trend. For example, if I were to move my GPS the distance of 3 meters on an azimuth of 314.2 over six hours, the GPS would not be able to provide an exact location, but the GPS would report SOME trend of movement, regardless of the margin of error. In other words, imy GPS could not pin down the exact location, but that 3 meter circle would likely have moved. The change in that 3 meter margin of error can provide a fairly precise indication of the exact relative movement. The Nature study sought to provide "relative" information, that is, the conclusion that the temperature has warmed .5 C relative to 1957. Under the logic that I've proposed, the solution is quite simple. IN my next post, I'll explain why the Nature study is distinugishable from this. p.s. For gits and shiggles, I decided to take a lunch break (rarity) and experiment with my Blackberry GPS for a while. I noticed that it, at times, had problems reorienting after I stopped. If I went a different direction, the little arrow would at times point the wrong way and then get itself to the right direction within a few feet. The changes are insignificant to my standard use of the thing. However, it also shows that for matters within the margin of error, it can be right confused! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #96 January 23, 2009 Quote Marc.. have you ever considered digital media... The old record player seems to be skipping again. Thanks for adding to the discusion"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #97 January 23, 2009 "Do you remember Fizz in a a pepper Peanuts in a bottle At ten two and four A fried ballony sandwich With mayo and tomatoe Sittin round the table Dont happen much anymore I wish back then I wish back then I wish back then" And carry is out to the part about the vynal and the records. I like the records too "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #98 January 23, 2009 Quote "Do you remember Fizz in a a pepper Peanuts in a bottle At ten two and four A fried ballony sandwich With mayo and tomatoe Sittin round the table Dont happen much anymore I wish back then I wish back then I wish back then" And carry is out to the part about the vynal and the records. I like the records too Yes i do.. I remember and you know what.. we have to LIVE in the 21st century... a return to the 1950's.. is not an option... Thanks for playing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #99 January 23, 2009 Quote Quote "Do you remember Fizz in a a pepper Peanuts in a bottle At ten two and four A fried ballony sandwich With mayo and tomatoe Sittin round the table Dont happen much anymore I wish back then I wish back then I wish back then" And carry is out to the part about the vynal and the records. I like the records too Yes i do.. I remember and you know what.. we have to LIVE in the 21st century... a return to the 1950's.. is not an option... Thanks for playing You are the one that took us thereI simply pointed out I like recordsYou are making this easy today and it is fun!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #100 January 23, 2009 I am partial to DVD's.. Blue ray... and all that the modern world affords listen to all the 45's you want Marc... its ok really... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites