This should give FirstAscent a stroke...

[FirstAscent]

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.



This sensor is designated 8903 (eg the filenames will start with 8903 that correspond to this):
http://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?

[bb113]

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.



This sensor is designated 8903 (eg the filenames will start with 8903 that correspond to this):
http://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.

[FirstAscent]

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?

[bb113]

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?

I don't understand why you think there can't be a huge number of faulty papers all supporting each others conclusions in a field, it is definitely possible... I don't know anything about the arctic ice because I haven't spent the time to learn about it.

[bb113]

Your logical fallacy is...

How about addressing the data, instead of the source?

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.

 

Read this paper. It is very accessible.

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

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/~janusonis/meehl1967.pdf

[FirstAscent]

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?

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.

[bb113]

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?

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).

[ElectricMucus]

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!

[FirstAscent]

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?

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).

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

[bb113]

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!

I'm not familiar enough with those methods, but it looks like they are saying that if two things are related (CO2 and temp) then they should be autocorrelated in the same way.
 I may have misunderstood though. I do know that if you fit a line to autocorrelated data without accounting for it exaggerates our confidence in the trend since it soaks up the autocorrelation effect.

[bb113]

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?

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).

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

They do not show that at all. What they show is that we should not blindly believe what is published in nature.

[myrkul]

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.

[fornit]

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.

ouch!
i really want to unsee this posting right now!

[FirstAscent]

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.

Those so far in support of what myrkul said:

- myrkul
- MoonShadow

[ElectricMucus]

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! 

[FirstAscent]

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! 

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.

[myrkul]

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.

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?

[ElectricMucus]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

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?

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

[FirstAscent]

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 supporting myrkul with regard to his statement or not?