This should give FirstAscent a stroke...

[scrybe]

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

You also consistently ignore every point that could prove you wrong.

Done.

FYI, you called me an idiot last week, I'm returning the favor with a lot more detail.

[myrkul]

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?

[scrybe]

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?

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.

[bb113]

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.

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

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.)

I would use the word heuristic, indicator is ok I suppose. Wouldn't you agree that if we have substantive predictions from the models that are easy to understand that the layperson need no longer rely on such heuristics? Real science doesn't rely on credibility beyond that the data is not fraudulent, since it predicts things.

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.)

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[scrybe]

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.

Yes, some of the rebuning reactors are pretty neat looking, but I'm a bit more enamored of the sealed pebble-bed idea, so you can drop 40-100Mw wherever you need it and no servicing is required for 40 years. (IIRC on the numbers)

Gamification is a huge tool, as we move from a society where labor was king, to one where capital is king (robot workers support humanity type scenario) I really think that more and more people will be concerned with play than work, the "Game of Life" might have a whole new meaning.

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.)

I would use the word heuristic, indicator is ok I suppose. Wouldn't you agree that if we have substantive predictions from the models that are easy to understand that the layperson need no longer rely on such heuristics? Real science doesn't rely on credibility beyond that the data is not fraudulent, since it predicts things.

[/quote]

Apparently "indicator" has a jargon use that I'm not familiar with. Heuristic is a bit more specific than I was looking for and it tends to mean that the decider performed some physical investigation or measurement themselves. In this case they are polling those who have done the measurements (or who have polled those who have done the measurements) in order to get a level of confidence and make a decision.

That would require the layman to be able to comprehend the models with a level of detail that is not generally taught. This is not an "appeal to authority" because we are trusting an aggregate group of folks in competition with each other, not a single source. Unfortunately the predictions and results of global warming are not "the sky will turn green at 5PM on tuesday" clear, so we are going to have experts both predicting, and measuring their (and their competitions) predictions. We simply don't have the ability to perceive globally on an individual basis, so taking an aggregate opinion is pretty important.

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.)

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.

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

It seems that 70 plus percent of the members within this forum hold your "wait and see (too late!), consensus doesn't matter (it does), quote all the quack sites (brainwashing), there is no consensus (false), it's the sun (debunked), melting icebergs won't raise the sea level (irrelevant as if there were no glacial calving), fail to see the lies (Oregon Petition, Frederick Seitz), do not understand the general science at all (why don't you pick up a book on ice ages, or something, for god sakes), don't acknowledge ice albedo feedback loops (more failure on your part), fail to realize the potential damages (changing precipitation patterns, extinctions from inability for species to relocate when they hit barriers), and the Earth will heal (sure, but it's now that counts)" attitude.  

[FirstAscent]

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?

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:

- A reduction in urban and suburban sprawl. Sprawl increases barriers disallowing species to relocate due to changing temperatures, which creates extinctions, which reduces ecosystem services.

- Increased city agriculture, hydroponics, garden roofs,, etc. to reduce reliance on crops which could go bad due to increasing droughts.

- Improved efficiency within urban areas, attempt to use urban planning to push the limits here. By doing so, get more people walking, better public transit, less suburban sprawl, etc.

[myrkul]

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?

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.

[FirstAscent]

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?

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.

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.

[bb113]

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.)

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.

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.

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

[myrkul]

I would also add to that:

You had your chance.

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?

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

[FirstAscent]

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.)

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.

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.

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

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.

[FirstAscent]

I would also add to that:

You had your chance.

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?

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. My recent post was in response to scrybe, and was never intended for your eyes or ears anyway.

[myrkul]

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.

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:

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.

No, they're not.
This one:

Melting ice doesn't absorb heat in your world?

is derived from science. The same science my "silly statement" came from, true, but they're independently derived.

This one, however:

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

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

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:

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.

No, they're not.
This one:

Melting ice doesn't absorb heat in your world?

is derived from science. The same science my "silly statement" came from, true, but they're independently derived.

This one, however:

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

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.

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

[scrybe]

You had your chance.

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.

And tell them they are morons, then come on back. You really will be joining the majority, and most of us will welcome you. (although, I'm still not convinced that you are a "denier" in the first place, please correct me if I am wrong.)

I'm a Yankee living in The South (southeastern USA excluding southern FL), and I've learned that slow is not always bad, although EM did have me saying "Bless his Heart."

Myrkul (finally pronounced that in my head, nice) I've enjoyed the spirited debate, let me know if you have questions, that one of the way I learn more too. I'm not an expert by any means, but I have been following this to one degree or another since the 90's (when I was very skeptical of it) and I even check in on the heartland institute and WUWT on occasion, even if they usually do just make me want to laugh or cry, at the naked punditry they are hawking.

FA does have a point about the manipulative tactics that have been getting more and more ridiculous over time to try to limit the impact of the entire climate science community. There is a LOT of money behind the status quo, and you can see it moving the levers that drive a lot of sockpuppetry. Our recent elections were just one example of this.

[scrybe]

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.)

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.

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.

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

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?

[myrkul]

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?

Fell apart? It's working precisely as I intended.

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

The only way it could have "fallen apart" is if you had rationally addressed the paper, and the flaws which others have pointed out in it's methods. But you never disappoint, and I've had several days of entertainment as a result.

[scrybe]

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.)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.