Bitcoin Forum

…We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing.

Your logical fallacy is... (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic)

How about addressing the data, instead of the source?

Your logical fallacy is... (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic)

How about addressing the data, instead of the source?

If we take, on balance, the number of papers which arrive at conclusions similar to the one you have posted, compared to the number of papers which arrive at conclusions opposite to the one you have posted, we would probably have a ratio equal to 1:100. Would you like to address those 100 papers first? Then I'll address your. And then we can move on to round two. And so on.

Your logical fallacy is... (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon)

it's entirely possible for those 100 papers to be wrong. Especially if they operated on flawed premises, or cherry-picked their data.

How about addressing this study, instead of pointing to more popular ideas?

Before we do anything I will need you to reconcile your statement about the source vs. the data with Stefan's attitude about sources vs. data.

Your logical fallacy is... (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic)

How about addressing the data, instead of the source?

Why should I? My name is not Stefan Molyneux. Please stop evading.

Because you're being contradictory, and your side holds no water until you fix that.

How am I being contradictory by calling you on a genetic fallacy?

Do you hold what Stefan Molyneux says in high regard? Do you think Stefan Molyneux has a valid point in the section of the clip I linked to? If so, then your previous request of me is null and void. If not, then can we decide that Stefan Molyneux is in general not worth listening to, and by extension, most all of your ideas and beliefs regarding your views on politics.

Ah. So, basically, Your logical fallacy is... (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque) (particularly stupid, since I'm not even the one you're accusing of committing a fallacy)

And, three strikes, you're out. Thanks for playing.

lol... Pretty much exactly what I predicted. FirstAscent immediately went into "dodge and deflect" mode, and refuses to address the paper in the article, ignoring any data which does not support his world view. Three fallacious arguments - including a particularly egregious tu quoque - later, he has conceded defeat.

Thanks for the show, FirstAscent, it was quite amusing.

You have made a thread, specifically about my reaction to some paper. The funniest part about it is your complete lack of demonstrable knowledge about the topic at hand. To boot, you can't address the three requests I've made, despite the fact that you have demand things of me in the past.

Do you have any knowledge about this subject that isn't spoon fed to you from your favorite libertarian sites?

First off, the thread was about the paper. You reacted in a predictable manner to the paper, which is what the title and the last line in the OP were about.

Secondly, You need to learn the difference between "can't" and "won't". I won't address the requests you've made, because they're unrelated to the paper, and at least one of them is based on a fallacy.

If you want to make this thread about your reaction to the paper, you can, but then I'll just be laughing at you even harder than I already am. If you wish to address the paper, you can. Or we can watch you flail some more.

Your opinions have been duly noted, Mister "I think I actually know something about climate science because I get my info from libertarian bloggers". And you have my permission to laugh all night long if it makes you happy.

I personally don't see any value in even having a discussion with someone such as you who is simultaneously extremely opinionated about a subject and extremely ignorant of said subject at the same time.

Do you have any knowledge about this subject that isn't spoon fed to you from your favorite libertarian sites?

And yet, you keep doing it... What does that say about how much you value your time?

I keep doing it? In fact, I am not doing it. I am very clearly not having a discussion with you about climate science, due to your extreme opinions and lack of knowledge.  What I am doing is having a discussion about the pointlessness of having said conversation with you. I did not state I was short of time (a failed assumption on your part).

I keep doing it? In fact, I am not doing it. I am very clearly not having a discussion with you about climate science, due to your extreme opinions and lack of knowledge.  What I am doing is having a discussion about the pointlessness of having said conversation with you. I did not state I was short of time (a failed assumption on your part).

Do you have any knowledge that is not spoon fed to you from your most trusted sources?

Why would one only choose to source their data from libertarian think tanks?

<sigh>  I will not attempt to intervene, if you continue to play right into his hands.

Have you considered that I don't use a political ideology to look for sources? Rather, my political ideology is derived from my general study.

Have you considered that I don't use a political ideology to look for sources? Rather, my political ideology is derived from my general study.

In the interests of impartiality, I have considered that, because I always consider the possibility that intelligent people I encounter might be the first unbiased and educated person that I meet.  Unfortunately, you didn't pass that test, either.  The only unbiased people that I have ever meet are those who are too ignorant or too stupid to form a coherent opinion about a topic.  Anyone who has made any attempt to self-educate invariablely chooses a side long before they are fully informed; which, in turn, colors their further assimilation of information.  Also, the side that they choose is, in my own experience, pre-determined by their pre-existing ideologies.

I am no exception.  Sorry, but neither are you.  I'm an INTP, and part of that personality type is that I'm more able, and inclined, to re-examine my own perspectives and conclusions on any given topic than any other personality type in the Myers-Briggs metric spectrum.  Therefore, no one is less biased, by nature, than one such as myself.  That said, I've found that, even as often I as do it; it has proven to be a very rare event that I would change my own mind concerning any topic.  I generally believe that most people can't alter their perspectives past a certain age, somewhere around 35 or so; even when presented with quite a bit of evidence.  The cognative dissonance might be significant, even stressful, but old people cannot change.  They can only pretend to change.

This is why these kinds of theological debates are not really conducted in public in order to convince the other party that they are incorrect, but to present the arguments to the yet unbiased reader in a manner that does not trigger the natural bullsh*t filters that raise red flags whenever we are directly preached to.  And this, FirstAscent, is why libertarianism is so very common among the young & internet savvy; for this has been utilized as a deliberate tactic by libertarians for over a decade now.  It's already too late to stop it, so whether you choose to participate personally in the destruction of your own worldview or not is already irrelevant.  Everyday libertarian 'trolls' like us have been presenting these arguments across all of the Internet for so long, and for so often, that young people (who can still be convinced) have been gravitating to the libertarian worldview year by year; simply because they are the very people that can look at these arguments objectively and decide which set they find to be more credible, more likely, and therefore more trustworthy.

And there it is, I've just exposed the entire goal of both of the Ron Paul campaigns (and pretty much his entire congressional career) as well as the reason for all of these libertarian leaning websites and think tanks dedicated to all of these various topics, such as Watts Up With That and Reason.com.  They exist to give the seeker some place to go to branch out and learn more, once they have already decided that we are correct, and further arm them to do what then comes naturally, and spread the memes in the same manner that they received them.

Your ideology has already lost, and I believe that I will live to see the rise and dominion of libertarianism in the public sphere within my own lifetime.

MoonShadow,

When you too want to spend some time reading up on the subject of climate science, ice ages, species migration, and so on, instead of Ron Paul's playbook and the drivel spewed from libertarian think tanks, I've got some reading recommendations for you.

Until then, you're entitled to your opinion on the osmosis of knowledge.

There has been zero aggregate warming in a decade or so...

MoonShadow, I'm sorry to say - you're uninformed.

tsk... Do I have to teach you English, too? If the above statement is incorrect, he is not uninformed, but misinformed.

    Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.13 C per decade

    April temperatures (preliminary)

    Global composite temp.: +0.30 C (about 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for April.

    Northern Hemisphere: +0.41 C (about 0.74 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for April.

    Southern Hemisphere: +0.18 C (about 0.32 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for April.

    Tropics: -0.12 C (about 0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for April.

Why are we looking at a volcano?

Perhaps you're seeing a different image than I am? There's no volcano in that picture, it's a graph of temperatures.

My bad. Now I just see a conveniently selected section of historical temperatures which are rising, and some denier fitted a sine curve to it, conveniently, because linear regression wouldn't have been favorable to his point.

They fit a sine curve to the data, which is interesting, but will need more time to see if it bears out.

some denier fitted a sine curve to it, conveniently, because linear regression wouldn't have been favorable to his point.

The links explain your errors.

Your logical fallacy is... (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic)

How about addressing the data, instead of the source?

I actually took the time to reanalyze the data from this paper:

These issues are obvious and take no expertise to understand. They actually note that the trend is due to those years in the paper and spend a bunch of time trying to figure out what may have caused the jump without success.

Also this paper is not NASA, NOAA, etc it is one group whose results are prematurely reported to the media. Your overreliance on credibility rather than investigating the data yourself is a weakness. Credibility is a heuristic, thats all. It should not lead to strong beliefs.

Also, I was thinking about writing this up. There are also a variety of database errors I found they should be alerted to. I need to say that I am impressed at the efforts taken to make the raw data publically available. It is really awesome.

Also, to give some perspective on these temperature changes that are averages of averages of averages. Here is the graph of the raw 10 minute interval data going back to 1984 (first year available). Upper is points colored by month (starting in january 1984), lower is lines overlayed with the annual average fit in that paper.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2i70net.png

This sensor is designated 8903 (eg the filenames will start with 8903 that correspond to this):
ftp://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/pub/aws/10min/rdr/

If you want I will send you the script that harvests the data so you can analyze it for yourself.

So the Arctic ice didn't reach record lows this summer? And that's because you have taken some data from some sensor and made some charts?

I don't know anything about the arctic ice. I am talking about the one paper I spent a good amount of time over the Christmas break assessing.

One paper? Out of many thousands.

I have a question for you: why do you not know anything about the Arctic ice?

The data is not different.  When analyzed normally by most statisticians it is very easy to find the climate change.   This author has used ECONOMIC analysis instead and the way he did it he did not find the climate change.  His paper is probably valid and does NOT contradict people who use other more scientificly accepted methods to analize the data.  Unfortunately for him and his paper it is most probably a tragic misapplication of that analysis model.

 

It is not unusual that (e) this ad hoc
challenging of auxiliary hypotheses is repeated in the course of a series of related
experiments, in which the auxiliary hypothesis involved in Experiment 1 (and challenged
ad hoc in order to avoid the latter's modus tollens impact on the theory)
becomes the focus of interest in Experiment 2, which in turn utilizes further plausible
but easily challenged auxiliary hypotheses, and so forth. In this fashion a zealous
and clever investigator can slowly wend his way through a tenuous nomological network,
performing a long series of related experiments which appear to the uncritical
reader as a fine example of "an integrated research program," without ever ,once refuting
or corroboratings o much as a single strand of the network. Some of the more
horrible examples of this process would require the combined analytic and reconstructive
efforts of Carnap, Hempel, and Popper to unscramble the logical relationships
of theories and hypotheses to evidence. Meanwhile our eager-beaver researcher,
undismayed by logic-of-science considerations and relying blissfully on the
"exactitude" of modern statistical hypothesis-testing, has produced a long publication
list and been promoted to a full professorship. In terms of his contribution to
the enduring body of psychological knowledge, he has done hardly anything. His
true position is that of a potent-but-sterile intellectual rake, who leaves in his merry
path a long train of ravished maidens but no viable scientific offspring.2

I don't know anything about the arctic ice because I haven't spent the time to learn about it.

So you're basically out of the loop, essentially not seeing the forest for the trees, eh? Feel free to prove through your analysis of a few papers that warming isn't happening, while the world warms around us.

This isn't my position at all. My position is that the degree of uncertainty we have given the data available is many orders of magnitude greater than what is presented in the news, much greater than what was claimed by the authors of the paper I analyzed, and probably greater than what is commonly assumed by researchers in the field (here I extrapolate from my own field and evidence from the one paper).

Can somebody here evaluate the stochastic model used in the original paper?

What is it called, and how does it work? Before this is done the debate here is pretty much pointless isn't it?
Lets see some formulas guys!

Please explain how your findings show the Arctic ice has not melted.

Please explain how your findings show the Arctic ice has not melted.

Arctic ice melting actually supports a steady temperature model, because of the phase change cooling. All the water in a glass of icewater stays at 32° until all the ice has melted.

Arctic ice melting actually supports a steady temperature model, because of the phase change cooling. All the water in a glass of icewater stays at 32° until all the ice has melted.

Let us quote this for posterity as a splendid example of a brainwashed libertarian climate change denier engaging in either manipulative deception or malignant stupidity. I invite any and all who wish to support myrkul in his statement above so that we may aggregate the lot of you into a single group. Don't be so quick to jump on his bandwagon without some consideration of what he's saying though.

Hey I am a climate change denier too, how dare you call me a libertarian!  :D

Let us quote this for posterity as a splendid example of a brainwashed libertarian climate change denier engaging in either manipulative deception or malignant stupidity. I invite any and all who wish to support myrkul in his statement above so that we may aggregate the lot of you into a single group. Don't be so quick to jump on his bandwagon without some consideration of what he's saying though.

Melting ice doesn't absorb heat in your world?

I'm not saying there isn't more heat energy. I'm saying it would make sense that the temperature stays roughly the same, even with the added heat energy, because melting ice absorbs heat energy in changing phase from ice at 32° to water at 32°.

Now, let me ask you: Let's assume this heat energy is directly or indirectly added by human action. What do you propose to do about it?

Seriously guys lets evaluate the method used in the paper to arrive at these conclusions.

If the method is flawed maybe we will find it and if we can reproduce the results we can verify it. It may be that doing this exceeds out abilities but at least it will be educational in contrast to firing insults at each other from our viewpoints.

Are you in or out with regard to the lump of deniers I'm creating who support what myrkul said? I'd like to know.

Are you supporting myrkul with regard to his statement or not?

Actually I am sceptical at both camps. So I would describe myself a sceptic not a denier, but I couldn't resist the temptation of attributing me to that group since the term is so ridiculous.

So you're going to defend your statement? I think that's great. Keep it up.

I'm not asking you if you're skeptical of climate science or not. I'm asking if you support myrkul's statement. Say 'yes' or say 'no' or admit you don't you know enough about the science.

Well, if the surrounding air heats up around an ice water mixture the mixture will stay at the freezing point of water while it doesn't make any statement about the temperature of the air. But if you measure the decay of the ice of the mixture you can extrapolate the temperature of the surrounding air.

Is that your point?

Well, if the surrounding air heats up around an ice water mixture the mixture will stay at the freezing point of water while it doesn't make any statement about the temperature of the air.

::)

So what did he state?

Arctic ice melting actually supports a steady temperature model, because of the phase change cooling. All the water in a glass of icewater stays at 32° until all the ice has melted.

Actually, it does. When the air melts the ice, it transfers heat energy from the air to the ice/water mixture. What do we call it when heat is transferred out of something?

Do you support his statement? I'm not seeing a lot of confidence from you. Try to answer: yes or no.

No.
The latter sentence however is a fact.

I'm happy for you. You will not be put on the list. So far, only myrkul is on the list.

Oh no! THE LIST.

 ::)

Wouldn't a list imply multiple subjects?

Of course, it all depends on the amount of air and water there is in the system. Since neither of you run computational models of the earth you both have it on.  ;D

I may be wasting my time here but did both of you actually read the whole paper? (I admit it I haven't)

If so how about you both post one specific quote from it of which you think is accurate/fallacious?

Honestly, there are thousands and thousands of papers on climate change. Not to mention excellent summaries on global warming written by very knowledgeable authors. Read some good books on the subject, and keep abreast of general reporting on the subject. You'll never be in a position to evaluate climate change effectively by looking at one paper. Just because myrkul posted doesn't make me interested in it.

But I do find his posts interesting, as in the one I've pointed out. If he can't get that right, then it makes on wonder why he even said it. We'll see if we can find even one person who supports it.

If the topic is as controversial I try to stay in a state of agnosticism. It's better for my mental health.
I don't think we have enough data to form a valid conclusion on the effects of greenhouse gases in relation to temperature. Quite simply I think that the signal to noise ratio is too high for something done so far to be called a measurement.

So you're going to defend your statement? I think that's great. Keep it up.

The controversy really is a manufactured thing. I have a question for you. Please answer it. In order to answer it though, you'll have to do a little digging. Here's the question: why does the Oregon Petition exist in the form in which it is in?

Can I be on "the list" too?

I haven't done this much of a digging, just looked up the wikipedia page on it.
It seems that the credibility is very questionable. There is something about fake signatures and wrong credentials along with the majority of signers in the wrong fields of science.

That is usual in anything to be considered "fringe" and is to be expected in every field of science on any topic. I've seen similar articles on physics, economics, geology and even math.
I am even sceptical about things like special relativity, capital, subduction and algebraic structures. The difference is that climatology has evolved to the point where it affects politics.

But I try not to let that affect my judgement.

Presumedly, once the ice is completely gone, the rate of warming would rapidly increase.

You're going on the list. I'm surprised you fell for it.

Oh goody! So, what happens when we're all gathered up? Do we get a train ride?

Are you ever going to answer those questions?

I really don't entertain questions that you might take seriously, given they are derived from your silly statement.

Melting ice doesn't absorb heat in your world?

Let's assume this heat energy is directly or indirectly added by human action. What do you propose to do about it?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/agw-bombshell-a-new-paper-shows-statistical-tests-for-global-warming-fails-to-find-statistically-significantly-anthropogenic-forcing/

On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.

You omitted the last sentence:

Do you know why it would?

before this get any more painful and embarrassing:

the obvious flaw in the glass of icewater example is that the ice is - compared to the size and general heat input/output of the earth - very small and local. you can have most of earth being rather unaffacted by the cooling effect of this little bit of melting ice while at the same time the ice is massively affected by even little changes to this huge planet.

They should publish the reviewers' comments to the manuscript.

Ice albedo feedback loops positively accelerate warming. A larger polar cap reflects heat back into space. Minus polar caps (or polar caps of diminishing size), more heat is absorbed into the oceans. Same goes for glacial ice sheets.

Conniption fit in 3...2...1...

For years, the Elites of the West have cranked up the myth of Man Made Global Warming as a means first and foremost to control the lives and behaviors of their populations. Knowing full well that their produce in China and sell in the West model and its consequent spiral downward in wages and thus standards of living, was unsustainable, the elites moved to use this new "science" to guilt trip and scare monger their populations into smaller and more conservatives forms of living. In other words, they coasted them into the poverty that the greed and treason of those said same elites was already creating in their native lands.

What better way to staunch protests at worsening economic and life conditions than to make it feel like an honourable job/duty of the people to save "Gia". At the same time, they used this "science" as new pagan religion to further push out the Christianity they hate and despise and most of all, fear? Gia worship, the earth "mother", has been pushed in popular culture oozing out of the West for a better part of the past 1.5 decades. This is a religion replete with an army of priests, called Government Grant Scientists.

Various groups have fought back. This is including Russian hackers, who published a huge database of UK government, scientific and university emails depicting the fixing of data to sell Global Warming, er Climate Change (as if it never changed on its own). And while taking hit after hit, the beast, like Al Qaida, will not die. As a matter of fact, the beast is on a steady come back, as it is quite useful during the down times recession. The US alone spends $7 billion each year on warming "studies", which is, in truth, nothing but a huge money laundering operation, as no real science is conducted and vapid alarmist reports the only product generated.

Amongst the newest claims of pending disasters, is a cry that icepacks are now melting at three times the rate of the 1990s, even though there has not been any significant warming in the past 20 years. Greenland's icepack melt off, has been linked to volcanic activity under the ice, heating it. Must be the magmamen and their SUVs. These facts, however, do not faze the Gia crowd and their Elite/Governmental backers. The fact that a super storm hit the NE US is also being played as evidence of GW. Thank God that before GW no such things ever happened. How are they to explain that Russia and Eastern Europe are projected to have the coldest winter in 20 years? Oh, but I doubt my Western readers are even aware of that.

Now, with their economies in a spiral of debt laden, non-manufacturing recession (if not out and out depression), the Elites, who sense they are loosing their grip or toe hold on key economic regions outside their home regions, are once again calling out their inquisitors of Global Warming and sending them towards the developing world.

The first salvo has been fired by a British Warming dandy named Lord Nicholas Stern of Brantford, who as an academic at Whitehall, has made a career and quite a bit of money off of this scam. Lord Stern, a former World Bank chief economist and author of the landmark Stern review of the economics of climate change, was a close associate of Gordon Brown and the Leftists, who with the Tory counterparts and in parallel to the American Democrats/Republicans set up the grand and self destructive economic schemes that have plunged their own nations and many many others into the abyss of poverty.

The good Lord Stern, in commentary on why countries such as Russia, China, India and Brazil, in other words, the BRICs, have to pony up cash and depress their own growth, made this statement for the Guardian paper: "It's a brutal arithmetic - the changing structure of the world's economy has been dramatic. That is something developing countries will have to face up to,"

His premise is that even if you take out the deindustrialized West, run away Global Warming will not stop due to the industrialized world. Its now all the fault of those raising themselves up for the destruction of the world, from the phantom joke of GW. Lord Stern tried to assure that the opening salvo was not a salvo, by stating: "I am not pointing the finger at the developing world, just looking at what is necessary. I am not accusing or proposing, just calculating what is needed [to meet scientific estimates of the emissions cuts needed to avoid dangerous levels of climate change]". More like a calculated accusation.  After all, this is not some light weight of the GIA cult, but the movement's chief economist who enjoyed the ear of the UK government: a perfect tool of the Western Elites.

Expect the cries to get louder and more shrill in the months to follow.

Stanislav Mishin

The article originally appears on author's blog, Mat Rodina

Dude, we are not talking about a little bit of ice.  While the ice-in-a-glass analogy has obvious flaws, the effect would certainly have a dampening effect upon the global averages, for no other reason than the area that is 'local' to the polar ice does make up a significant portion of the globe, and cannot much exceed 32 degrees F lest the melting of the ice absorb that heat.

Sea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003) developed at APL/PSC.  Anomalies for each day are calculated relative to the average over the 1979 -2011 period for that day of the year to remove the annual cycle. The model mean annual cycle of sea ice volume over this period ranges from 28,700 km3 in April to 12,300 km3 in September.  The blue line represents the trend calculated from January 1 1979 to the most recent date indicated on the figure.  Monthly averaged ice volume for September 2012 was 3,400 km3. This value is 72% lower than the mean over this period, 80% lower than the maximum in 1979, and 2.0 standard deviations below the 1979-2011  trend.

"The average depth of the ocean is about 3,796 meters (12,451 feet), the volume of seawater 1.37 billion cubic kilometers"

An environmentalist apologises for opposing GM and talks about how learning about Global Warming have demanded a science literacy that his anti-GM views could not survive. Mark Lynas » Lecture to Oxford Farming Conference, 3 January 2013 http://buff.ly/TMDkzT

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US)

Any way you slice it it's 4.4cm (polar-ice model) ice cube floating in a glass the size of a 20' Conex container. Even the "all-in" scenario only has a 90cm cube, and one end of the container is at 70+ degree tropical water. Do you really think you will reach equilibrium at 32 degrees in this system? Even if we turn off all external energy sources that ice is doomed.

We are also not talking about a little bit of water...

Ice:

Water:

So using 2012 numbers and just polar sea ice we have a ratio of 385,294:1 in favor of water. Mean numbers since 1979 give us 45,644:1.

If we add in Greenland and the Antarctic Ice in the water (along with all other water-borne ice) you still "only" get 620,000 km3 (2005 numbers, fun paper to read: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html) for a ratio of 2112:1 in favor of water.

Even if we dump every last icicle and snowball in the ocean and clear every mountain and continent of all ice, we still only get down to 44:1 water to ice ratio.

Any way you slice it it's 4.4cm (polar-ice model) ice cube floating in a glass the size of a 20' Conex container. Even the "all-in" scenario only has a 90cm cube, and one end of the container is at 70+ degree tropical water. Do you really think you will reach equilibrium at 32 degrees in this system? Even if we turn off all external energy sources that ice is doomed.

THIS is why I'm sure FirstAscent was positively giddy when that analogy was used, it is so ridiculous if you look at the numbers that it beggars belief.

Thanks for the laugh guys,

Scrybe

Heh. That's quite an image. But the point was not that the sea ice would be able to maintain an equilibrium of 32°. The point was that the melting of the ice would serve to dampen any heating effect.

However, when spread over the area  covered by Arctic sea ice, the additional energy required to melt this much sea ice is actually quite small. It corresponds to about 0.4 Wm-2 . That’s like leaving a very small and dim flashlight bulb continuously burning on every square meter of ice.

Wow, you really missed the point.

The major problems in the paper, however, invalidate it _far_ before they get to that point:

• They misapply a test for non-stationary series (with unit roots), and falsely conclude that temperature and forcing are non-stationary.
• Based on that error, they differentiate (difference) both until their erroneous test shows stationary series.
• Proper testing shows both temperature and forcing lack unit roots, are therefore stationary, and _time series regression is therefore the proper method_ rather than differencing. Even using the unit root they apply (ADF), on appropriate data (1975 on, linear trend with variation around it), the unit root is strongly rejected.
• Therefore: Their paper is not even wrong.
• Note: this means their paper does not support or falsify either the AGW _or their null hypothesis_ - you can conclude NOTHING WHATSOEVER in that regard due to invalid techniques, and the initial error regarding unit root identification. There is no support there for your claims regarding their null hypothesis, no matter how you rephrase it.
• As is, any usage of this paper to rebut AGW and/or CO2 correlation with global temperatures should be considered pre-failed. Said attempts to do so should also be considered credibility seppuku.

Proper analysis, with time series regression, has been done by multiple investigators - ALL of them have found causal links between greenhouse gas forcing and temperature.

Ok, how much "dampening" do you expect?

Or would the small amount of ice melting more and more quickly be more of an indicator that the system's overall temperature was increasing?

Overall heat energy, not temperature. I do not believe I have ever disputed that there is more heat energy than before, at least over a relatively short timescale. What I have disputed is that: 1. this is necessarily a bad thing, and 2. humans have caused it.

I have seen no conclusive proof of either, so I remain skeptical of both claims.

Overall heat energy, not temperature. I do not believe I have ever disputed that there is more heat energy than before, at least over a relatively short timescale. What I have disputed is that: 1. this is necessarily a bad thing, and 2. humans have caused it.

I have seen no conclusive proof of either, so I remain skeptical of both claims.

So you just said you don't even believe this paper, because it's methods are deeply flawed and its findings are not the same as what you put forth above.

On point 1, WTF is WRONG with you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming tell me what in this is NOT bad?

Here, read this and you might have a better understanding of this issue. It is quite obvious that you either don't know or don't care what is going on. http://dels.nas.edu/Materials/Booklets/Lines-of-Evidence

The big thing about unit roots is the fact that they do not occur in a deterministic system. Who wants to make the arguments that the climate is truly a random-walk and the laws of physics have no effect that could cause a change?

I can't say anything about whether the paper is valid or not, but I highly doubt this accurately describes what is going on here. For example, by your definition what in the universe would not be a deterministic system?

That's my point. The analysis method used by the author of the paper requires an assumption that is utterly and provably invalid.

So you just said you don't even believe this paper, because it's methods are deeply flawed and its findings are not the same as what you put forth above.

That's my point. The analysis method used by the author of the paper requires an assumption that is utterly and provably invalid.

Honestly, my personal view is fuck the planet, this is about the species. Of course I also think that it would be really nice to eventually have an ancestral homeland that our future descendants can visit from the stars (<1000 years, peanuts in geologic and climate cycles) that is not a lesson i what NOT to do to a planet.

Polynomial co-integration is a technique from the world of the Austrian School of Economics (http://www.ihs.ac.at/publications/eco/es-264.pdf) that is used when you are trying to find correlations between a bunch of data that you THINK is related, but you don't know HOW.

It's not just a matter of degree like you are stating, we know some stuff, not every little niggle, but we still know enough to show that the climate DOES have forcings (multiple, not just 1) that influence things from one year to the next. We know the basic rules (even if Bill O'Riley thinks we don't know what causes tides. Yes, he really said that.) and we know that the movement from year to year is not in a random pattern.

I'm pretty sure if I was a climate scientist I'd either be laughing or crying about how inappropriate this analysis method is. As it is I'm pretty appalled.

I thought I'd post that for hilarity. Apparently there are SUVs on Neptune.
Oh and I researched the "debunking" too, the data on solar irradiance is supposed to be false. If it weren't for the Neptune chart that would be almost believable ;)

(FYI, the intermediate tab has this gem: "On the other hand, Uranus is cooling")

Look at a graph of temperature (even the average of average of average ones). Pretty much none of the "niggles" are explained, and are therefore validly modeled non-deterministically (ie stochastically). There may be problems with using cointegration to describe climate, but I am confident you are not describing them well since it makes no sense.

Dr. Acula says:
January 3, 2013 at 12:26 pm
Being well-versed in the Austrian School of economics, I have a pretty low opinion of econometric techniques.

Sorry, but this paper seems to be playing mathematical games to me. It’s not at all obvious why “cointegration tests” should be trusted. What empirical evidence is there to justify using cointegration tests? Why were certain tests used and not their alternatives?

I’m guessing this isn’t really science, but rather the opinion of (perhaps seasoned) econometricists engaging in their art.

It did not take me long to find troubling information about cointegration: http://www.capco.com/capco-institute/capco-journal/journal-32-applied-finance/the-failure-of-financial-econometrics-asses

“This paper demonstrates that the results obtained by using different cointegration tests vary considerably and that they are not robust with respect to model specification. It is also demonstrated that, contrary to what is claimed, cointegration analysis does not allow distinction between spurious relations and genuine ones. Some of the pillars of cointegration analysis are not supported by the results presented in this study.”

AND
DeWitt Payne says:
January 3, 2013 at 2:15 pm
And looking at the global economy, I would say it’s working really well. /sarc

Just one fundamental flaw of many. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is not a random variable. It is almost completely deterministic. There is measurement error and year to year variability, but those factors are small compared to the deterministic change. We know where it comes from and how much is emitted each year. Applying a unit root test to this data without removing the deterministic trend is therefore invalid.

Thought I felt a chill.

How about addressing the data, instead of the source?

I'll admit that I'm only somewhat literate at higher math, let me try to frame it again and give you a couple links that should make it clear in a few minutes of reading.

Essentially they are using a root unit which should have been rejected because the dataset is not a random-walk. This analysis method is only for non-deterministic systems, and generally the data is tested to ensure that it is random and not deterministic. The researchers in this managed not to run any of the checks in an effective manner, and there is signal showing through where there should only be a trend + noise. This link has a blog post that gets into the math: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/still-not/ and this one has some explanations and expansions on it: http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2013/01/polynomial-cointegration-tests-of.html (the second one is more readable, but you get a better sense of the math from the first)


Edit, shorter option from comments on original article:

One aspect of the failure of financial econometrics is the use of cointegration analysis for financial decision making and policy analysis. This paper demonstrates that the results obtained by using different cointegration tests vary considerably and that they are not robust with respect to model specification. It is also demonstrated that, contrary to what is claimed, cointegration analysis does not allow distinction between spurious relations and genuine ones. Some of the pillars of cointegration analysis are not supported by the results presented in this study. Specifically it is shown that cointegration does not necessarily imply, or is implied by, a valid error correction representation and that causality is not necessarily present in at least one direction. More importantly, however, cointegration analysis does not lead to sound financial decisions, and a better job can be done by using simple correlation analysis.

...

The objective of this paper is to demonstrate that cointegration analysis, error correction modeling, and causality testing are misleading, confusing, and provide a tool for proving preconceived ideas and beliefs. More important, however, is the hazardous practice of using the results of cointegration analysis to guide policy and financial operations, including investment, financing, and hedging. With the help of examples on stock market integration and international parity conditions it will be demonstrated that cointegration analysis produces results that tell us nothing and that for practical purposes these results are useless at best and dangerous at worst.

more on cointegration:

    Null hypotheses of no difference are usually known to be false before the data are collected; when they are, their rejection or acceptance simply reflects the size of the sample and the power of the test, and is not a contribution to science.

Thats fine. All I'm saying is that if that is enough evidence for you to dismiss the paper you should dismiss pretty much every journal article in every field except physics since 1950.

What about genetics? Didn't Watson & Crick publish in '53? ;)

No stats in that paper...

 Look at this current paper and the source of the controversy, it really does prove my point. Previous work has attempted to reject the null hypothesis that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2. This current work tests the null hypothesis that there is no autocorrelation. Surprise surprise, everyone proves their hypothesis true since there is always some correlation and (probably) always some degree of autocorrelation in any timeseries data set.

Well hello there, I had to take you off ignore for this one (FYI, I found several of your comments in this thread insightful and thought provoking, I'm not sure what is wrong with me ;) )

I'm pretty sure that the "other planets are warming too" thing came from a session where they just compared all the graphs to find several that went in the same direction.

Here is a good recap of the details: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system-basic.htm

I like the Neptune one the best because most people have no concept of the speed seasons change with that 164 year orbital period. Not sure if they have SUV's or not, but if they have spring fashions like our coed's do, you might want to visit a Neptuntian University and take in the sights.

Also the earth solar forcing has been uncooperative since the temperature keeps going up when it goes up, or down, or stays the same.

(FYI, the intermediate tab has this gem: "On the other hand, Uranus is cooling")

"Lies, damn lies, and statistics," eh?

The climate models don't seem to be predicting the temperature all that well, meaning they can be improved.

You're right. They didn't predict that the Arctic ice would melt as fast as it is. But they have been consistently predicting it with an increasing consensus for forty or so years.

Yes I've seen that too.

There are bunch of excuses for other planets in there too, all of them different. Not really that consistent.

This sounds absurd to me. Who cares about consensus. The models predict something, we see if it occurs. Predicting the direction of something is 50/50 a priori. Is this the paper you are referring to?:

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/09/models-are-improving-but-can-they-catch-up.html

Calling these explanations "excuses" implies that you don't believe them, is that the case?

Exactly.

IMO we simply don't know enough about our planet and the universe to draw a conclusion such as global warming is caused by us or not. I think we cannot know it the same way as we cannot know how to cure cancer.
There isn't enough research (By that I mean real research not throwing publications at each other in order to "prove" ones point of view.)

But there won't be any real research as long as it is a political issue. This is just how the society works, sadly.

Really? Cancer? You are going to use a disease that we have been battling for years and have made good progress on (>1.6% reduction in mortality every year since 1979 in the US) and actually understand a lot of things about? Childhood Leukemia has an 80% cure rate with low remission, and non-melanoma skin cancers are not even counted in most cancer incidence statistics anymore since they are easily cured on 2-3 million people every year.

We understand a lot more about the universe than you seem to realize, maybe you should step outside of Plato's cave sometimes.

I guess I was wrong about taking you off of ignore. You and Bill O'Riley can go back to scratching your heads about why the tides happen.

What it is always with threatening ignore with you people when you disagree on something I typed?

Maybe cancer wasn't the best example, my impression is that besides threating the symptoms and removing the affected areas of the body (which doesn't always work) there is not much we can do.
In the medieval ages they had treatments for "fever" too if I may bring up another analogy... But a cure NFW!

Oh maybe you really should put me on ignore since you are continuing to insult me.

Expecting politics to push science in the right direction is like expecting a pig to push the button on it's own bolt gun. Science generally FORCES our leaders to change by prooving that they are wrong (and in a democracy, getting enough constituents riled up,) but with the current crop of ideologues that refuse to give an inch on any point of dogma (no matter how much evidence is presented) we will be a long time waiting for some of them to come around.

I'm going to ask you the same thing I did FA, and he ignored:
You have just been elected world dictator, and presented with irrefutable evidence that not only is global warming happening, but it is happening through human action.

What do you do to fix it?

We care about scientific consensus because it is an indicator that the layman can use to determine if a scientist is in the mainstream of his field or a whackjob on the fringe (or in another field entirely.)

Predicting the direction of something is 50/50 in a random-walk model, when did you prove this earlier? In a model with causation you generally can predict the direction and magnitude with some level of certainty (and you should be able to generate some error bars as well.)

A lot of this is happening already, at least at the research level, just without the urgency that I would feel it important to insist on. I've encountered other ideas, but these are the ones that came to the top of my mind. I think I hit all the major areas, but I was just going off the top of my head.

Most of these are great ideas. I especially like the first one. For nuclear power, have you looked into LFTR? It even eats old waste as fuel.

We care about scientific consensus because it is an indicator that the layman can use to determine if a scientist is in the mainstream of his field or a whackjob on the fringe (or in another field entirely.)

This is confused. The actual direction of a 100% stochastic process is 50/50. The actual direction of a deterministic process is obviously not 50/50. However, when there are various unknown initial parameters and relationships between parameters it is 50/50 from the perspective of the investigator.

Oh maybe you really should put me on ignore since you are continuing to insult me. I have no problem with reading your insults, I just won't respond to them.

That is a big responsibility so I would not be able to make snap decisions, but here are some short-list actions.

-Make sure that everyone knows that they DO have an impact on the environment and provide tools to self-determine your impact. Gamification of personal reductions with prizes/awards for those that are willing to go above and beyond. (PoC (Proof of Conservation?)
-Reduce emissions where possible, I like a market based approach similar to cap and trade, but it's not perfect. Removing the perception of political bias and preventing off shoring of entire industries is critical a global scale.
-Reduce incident radiation where possible, multiple technologies available including sulfur injection and mirror arrays, but most of them require such large numbers to be effective that multiple will have to be used in parallel to have a large enough impact very soon. (this would also reduce the chances of a "runaway" effect that we cannot correct for, if the sulfur injection estimates are off we can re-position the mirrors to compensate (and maybe even help with storm control as well))
-Encourage non-fuel use of petroleum and ban/limit feed-stock biodiesel while incentivising landfill owners, ranchers and others to capture and convert what they can.
-Encourage older buildings to be updated and reduce emissions by 40%
-Encourage local efforts for green streets and homes
-Fast-track a Mars mission with a goal of 1000 permanent inhabitants by 2045 and over 1 million by 2070.
-Mandate a highly functional transit system in every major city, and encourage folks to live closer to work (I actually like this one for fostering communities as well)
-Require the full lifecycle impact of a new vehicle technology be within 90% of state of the art, shipping battery packs for a new Prius around the  world a couple times might not be the best plan, some manufacturing should be better distributed to reduce this (hard drives, other tech that has built a single global center that produces more than 60-70% of world consumption.
-Enact distance-based tariffs on food that could be obtained locally at a slightly higher price. (exceptions of you get products from point A to B by sailing or other low/zero emissions method)
-Significant expansion of Solar, Wind, Hydro, and Nuclear power (and finally get around to doing something with the waste on the last one)
-accelerate deployment of hydrogen power for cases where electric is not going to work.
-require carbon sink rigs be used to offset a significant portion of (then current) production.

A lot of this is happening already, at least at the research level, just without the urgency that I would feel it important to insist on. I've encountered other ideas, but these are the ones that came to the top of my mind. I think I hit all the major areas, but I was just going off the top of my head.

I would also add to that:

You had your chance.

OK, but the point was, this method is for analyzing 100% stochastic systems, not deterministic ones, it has been misapplied. I also have some doubts about that second sentence, on the surface it seems unlikely that you can factor in the massive influences we understand on the climate and still be stuck at 50/50. I don't need to know the initial point, exact impact angle, or velocity for a baseball to know that if it is hit it will likely go forward, but there is a small chance it might go backwards or straight up.

Show me where you asked me that question.

Now, let me ask you: Let's assume this heat energy is directly or indirectly added by human action. What do you propose to do about it?

Ok, I see the problem. That is just not true. What is your source for this?

Your response: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134725.msg1437161#msg1437161
Completely ignored the question.

My apologies. I was so caught up in your inability to understand arctic ice melt and general delusional stupidity combined with your complete opposition to regulations that I didn't actually give a fuck about your question to me then. Nor do I now.

No, they're not.
This one:
is derived from science. The same science my "silly statement" came from, true, but they're independently derived.

This one, however:
is completely unrelated, and I'd very much like your answer. What do you propose to do about global warming? I'm even allowing you to assume it's all our fault.

In other words, you are arguing completely from emotion. OK, then. Thanks for your honesty, especially since it allows the rational members of this discussion to discard your opinions as emotionally biased. I'll also note that I asked you twice:

Show me where you asked me that question. And besides, you're too stubborn and obtuse to digest this information properly. I've been advocating regulations to that effect and more for a year now here. All you do is claim such actions are the government pointing a gun at someone's head.

Please, go back to your fringe, crackpot, quack material self published by the pseudo science philosophers you so admire.

Ok, I see the problem. That is just not true. What is your source for this?

I'm sorry, but do you have a point, or are you just grasping at straws because the thread you started using my username has fell apart for you?

Conniption fit in 3...2...1...

Your diligence is semi-admirable, but may I suggest something? As I said earlier, you essentially lack common sense. I don't mean common sense as in you can't fix yourself a sandwich, but as in, you don't understand climate science at the general level. Interested laymen know much more than you. Your nose is stuck in spreadsheets, but you have no general understanding of the forces at work, the dynamic interactions, etc. Sort of like someone who has no real 'feel' for hitting a baseball.

Learn about the following:

- Ice ages and their causes
- Ice albedo feedback loops
- Current fieldwork on glacier melting
- Ice core analysis, tree ring analysis
- Climate change induced species migration
- Sea level rise and its causes
- The changing of precipitation patterns
- Political blockades
- Consensus view
- Prior EPA success stories

And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, I think you discount scientists doing field work out in the real world too much. I sensed this when you tried to make light of the article which summarized the effects of climate change on the migration of species. It's akin to an armchair mountaineer analyzing the decisions of a team pushing a new route on an 8,000 meter peak in the Himalaya. You're not seeing the things that field workers are seeing - years of study allow them to intuit the truth in ways you're not familiar with.

Hmm, I must have misunderstood something. This was from that blog post from yesterday, the one explaining how they had invalid tests being performed and they were failing to reject the presence of the unit root. I'll have to look at it again.

maybe it was a stochastic variable, not system or I'm making another semantic error. You obviously know a bit about it, care to share with the class?

I'm a little insulted that you think you know me so well. I'm not having a misunderstanding in ANY of those areas, and I've been defending YOUR position as well I believe, which causes me to be a bit amazed that you feel I need to go back to basics. Especially after you chimed in with a list of 3 things to add to my list (of which 2 were actually covered in the list at least partially.)

...

You might want to reconsider your way of interacting with folks, I'm pretty unimpressed.

As I said, I am not clear on what relationship this has to the cointigration analysis. I am just saying that the debunking for it you provided doesn't make sense to me.

I'm a little insulted that you think you know me so well. I'm not having a misunderstanding in ANY of those areas, and I've been defending YOUR position as well I believe, which causes me to be a bit amazed that you feel I need to go back to basics. Especially after you chimed in with a list of 3 things to add to my list (of which 2 were actually covered in the list at least partially.)

My misunderstanding is in statistical math, specifically econometrics, which I have almost no experience with. I have been following IPCC reports, US govt reports, I followed the ozone hole scare, I followed CFC regulation and it's results, and just this morning I was looking at pictures of ice floe coverage and a couple polar bears on a blog. This is not something that I do every day, or systematically, but it has fascinated me for years and I feed my fascinations as much science as they can stomach.

You might want to reconsider your way of interacting with folks, I'm pretty unimpressed.

My post was clearly addressed to bitcoinbitcoin113, someone I have been interacting with for at least a year, and that was my summary of a year's interaction with him. Thanks for your opinion though.

My post was clearly addressed to bitcoinbitcoin113, someone I have been interacting with for at least a year, and that was my summary of a year's interaction with him. Thanks for your opinion though.

So... what if we do something like cut all oil subsidies and stop military support/protection for oil wells in troubled areas of the world, making gas prices in US possibly go up to $6 a gallon, and stopped subsidies for highways and roads, making them depend on tolls and other means to raise money for upkeep, thus making driving itself very expensive as well? I.e. get the government out of that particular part of transportation. Would that help?