"Independent Thinking" vs Appeal To Authority In Science
in [Math]
|
Prev: Benford's Law
Next: where we have a new understanding of what factorial means in 254! = 10^500 #648 Correcting Math
From: Bret Cahill on 31 Jul 2010 23:57 PHOENIX Police were using helicopters and dogs Saturday to search for three convicted murderers who escaped from a northwest Arizona prison, kidnapped two semi-truck drivers at gunpoint and used the big rig to flee. Department of Corrections spokesman Barrett Marson said the men escaped Friday evening by cutting a hole through a perimeter fence at the medium-security Arizona State Prison in Golden Valley, about 90 miles southeast of Las Vegas. They should be considered especially dangerous because of the nature of their convictions, he said. Officials identified the escapees as Tracy Province, 42, who was serving a life sentence for murder and robbery; Daniel Renwick, 36, serving 22 years for second-degree murder; and John McCluskey, 45, serving 15 years for second-degree murder, aggravated assault and discharge of a firearm. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > When the general public hears about a nearby prison break they don't > have or need the time to research all the court documents to verify > for themselves that the escapees are in fact actually violent > murderers and not just some wrongfully convicted innocents. > > The public is aware of itself, the judicial process, the established > institutions and the media and various authorities to be sure enough > to lock the doors, etc. > > In fact, most of the general public will generally go to the ER and > hope that they won't get the wrong limbs amputated. > > Something similar goes on in science. Scientists are familiar with > the peer review process and established institutions and personalities > and can draw conclusions and take action on work that is completely > outside of their field. > > So appeal to authority is something every astute person does at some > time or another. The ones who appear ignorant of vetting processes > and institutions are called "wingers." > > Independent thinking in science means coming up with a new > relationship, something _no one_ has stated before. While this is a > lofty goal doesn't mean that all scientists spend all their time doing > it. > > Most non atmospheric scientists listen to the atmospheric scientists > and maybe wonder about some of their methods but generally believe > what the atmospheric scientists are basically correct. > > But under no circumstances can anyone suggest independent thinking is > a mob of high school drops out sitting around listening to a high > school drop out talk radio host tell the largest lowest common > denominator mob audience what they already wanted to hear because he > gets the most money pandering to the biggest mob of doggy poopy > stoopid rightards. > > Bret Cahill
From: bert on 1 Aug 2010 09:27 On Jul 31, 11:57 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > PHOENIX Police were using helicopters and dogs Saturday to search > for three convicted murderers who escaped from a northwest Arizona > prison, kidnapped two semi-truck drivers at gunpoint and used the big > rig to flee. > > Department of Corrections spokesman Barrett Marson said the men > escaped Friday evening by cutting a hole through a perimeter fence at > the medium-security Arizona State Prison in Golden Valley, about 90 > miles southeast of Las Vegas. They should be considered especially > dangerous because of the nature of their convictions, he said. > > Officials identified the escapees as Tracy Province, 42, who was > serving a life sentence for murder and robbery; Daniel Renwick, 36, > serving 22 years for second-degree murder; and John McCluskey, 45, > serving 15 years for second-degree murder, aggravated assault and > discharge of a firearm. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > When the general public hears about a nearby prison break they don't > > have or need the time to research all the court documents to verify > > for themselves that the escapees are in fact actually violent > > murderers and not just some wrongfully convicted innocents. > > > The public is aware of itself, the judicial process, the established > > institutions and the media and various authorities to be sure enough > > to lock the doors, etc. > > > In fact, most of the general public will generally go to the ER and > > hope that they won't get the wrong limbs amputated. > > > Something similar goes on in science. Scientists are familiar with > > the peer review process and established institutions and personalities > > and can draw conclusions and take action on work that is completely > > outside of their field. > > > So appeal to authority is something every astute person does at some > > time or another. The ones who appear ignorant of vetting processes > > and institutions are called "wingers." > > > Independent thinking in science means coming up with a new > > relationship, something _no one_ has stated before. While this is a > > lofty goal doesn't mean that all scientists spend all their time doing > > it. > > > Most non atmospheric scientists listen to the atmospheric scientists > > and maybe wonder about some of their methods but generally believe > > what the atmospheric scientists are basically correct. > > > But under no circumstances can anyone suggest independent thinking is > > a mob of high school drops out sitting around listening to a high > > school drop out talk radio host tell the largest lowest common > > denominator mob audience what they already wanted to hear because he > > gets the most money pandering to the biggest mob of doggy poopy > > stoopid rightards. > > > Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - To Ya All 50% off my science thinking is self taught. I get good and bad reponse on my out of the box thinking. My hope has been my posts are interesting. TreBert
From: hersheyh on 1 Aug 2010 10:37 On Jul 31, 10:00 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Jul 31, 6:52 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 8:32 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 11:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 18, 4:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 18, 1:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 10:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 12:22 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 11:26 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:24:55 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> < snip far left anti-American political rant > > > > > > > > > > > > This is what was snipped by the winger dinger: > > > > > > > > > > Wow. A childish, immature and irrelevant argumentum ad hominem that shows > > > > > > > > > that you're politically motivated (you desire a nanny state and want to > > > > > > > > > suckle off Uncle Sam's hairy teats), immature, and have a low level of > > > > > > > > > intelligence. > > > > > > > > > > < snip the bad analogy fallacy comparing prisons to science in arguing > > > > > > > > > why everyone should stop thinking and listen to (socialist) authorities.> > > > > > > > > > > First of all, your silly analogy fails. Prisons are not science. Science > > > > > > > > > is observation, hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and accept or reject the > > > > > > > > > hypothesis based on the results of the test. It is a continuous process. > > > > > > > > > A well known example is classical mechanics; it was tested and proven to > > > > > > > > > be a useful theory up until the beginning of the 20th century, when it > > > > > > > > > began to fail. Then new theories, like QM and SR, were developed to > > > > > > > > > predict where CM failed. > > > > > > > > > > AS science goes, AGW is a fail. The predictions of the late 1990s failed > > > > > > > > > to predict the non-warming of the next decade. In science, that is called > > > > > > > > > "the rejected hypothesis". Further, Svensmark keyed on the stronger > > > > > > > > > correlation between solar cycle and climate change and found the physical > > > > > > > > > mechanism and verified his theory at CERN. His theory not only explains > > > > > > > > > climate change for the last 4 billion years, but the hemispherical > > > > > > > > > effects of climate change, the solar correlation, and the observed > > > > > > > > > climate change on other planets that AGW fails to predict.. The increase > > > > > > > > > in CO2 is then explained by simple chemistry: a warmer ocean holds less > > > > > > > > > CO2 and dissolves more carbonate into CO2. CO2 is an EFFECT, not a cause, > > > > > > > > > of warming. At this point, one applies Occam's Razor. > > > > > > > > > What exactly, then, if the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere > > > > > > > > is due to the release of carbon from the ocean, makes *all* the > > > > > > > > gigatons of anthropogenically-generated CO2 disappear from the > > > > > > > > atmosphere? The usual estimates of the amount of CO2 produced > > > > > > > > anthropogenically comes up with numbers that are *larger* than (about > > > > > > > > double) the observed amount from anthropogenic sources (leading to the > > > > > > > > idea that the "missing" anthropogenic CO2 is being absorbed by the > > > > > > > > oceans, which are the only sink with sufficiently fast rate of uptake > > > > > > > > and capacity). Now you are saying that the oceans are not the sink > > > > > > > > for the missing part of the amount of anthropogenically produced CO2, > > > > > > > > but actually is the *source* of the observed increase in atmospheric > > > > > > > > CO2. If that is so, where did *all* the anthropogenic CO2 produced > > > > > > > > during the industrial age go? It's missing! It had to go somewhere. > > > > > > > > Should we put out a missing gas announcement? Where is it? > > > > > > > > This graph shows that the level of atmospheric co2 in a large part is > > > > > > > controlled by the global temperature, most likely due to the > > > > > > > absorption and expelling of co2 from the surface layer of the ocean. > > > > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.... > > > > > > > There is an annual cycle to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Not > > > > > > surprisingly, the CO2 low is in late summer and the high is in late > > > > > > winter in the Northern hemisphere and is due to the different rates of > > > > > > uptake and outgo due to the growing season. Fossil fuel CO2 is an > > > > > > addition to this cycle. > > > > > > First let me thank you for your response. It shows a lot more thought > > > > > than the slurs and insults that are being posted here almost to the > > > > > exclusion of all else. > > > > > > I'm not sure how your description of an annual cycle applies to the > > > > > graph I posted. > > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.... > > > > > > Those are multi year cycles. > > > > > So is the analysis I present below. And if the one for CO2 at Mauna > > > > Loa looks familiar, that is because it is. I looked at the other > > > > temperature measures, and they looked pretty similar to the one in my > > > > graph. > > > > Your graph? I don't see where you posted a graph or presented an > > > analysis with multi year cycles. > > > > > Clearly *someone* is manipulating the raw data (see below) to > > > > *somehow* to generate the data you *claim* represents CO2 and > > > > temperature. It is not at all clear what the manipulations of the raw > > > > CO2 data and raw temperature data are. *CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT > > > > EXPLAIN* how the raw data was manipulated to get the graph above? > > > > Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Unlike some here I have a > > > life. > > > > The graph was not my creation. I first saw it posted in a thread here > > > in alt.global-warming. Pretty sure it was this one > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/ee7c23ff6a25d28.... > > > > Being a skeptic I was at first skeptical ;-) > > > > I ploted the raw data to see if it looked right. Here is co2 data > > > showing the yearly cycles. > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:1/magnitude/from:1958 > > > > Plotting the mean of each data point just plots the points. > > > > Take the mean of 12 points andy you get a floating yearly average. > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/magnitude/from:1958 > > > > Looks about right copared to > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg > > > > Here is GISS temp monthly > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1 > > > > yearly > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12 > > > > and 5 year > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:60 > > > > So the site is using the correct data. > > > > Looking at the graph > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0..... > > > > it was pretty obvious the yearly cycles weren't shown. As shown above > > > those were taken out using the mean:12 command. It looked like the > > > rising trend had been removed, making it easier to see multi year > > > cycles. To check I tried > > > IOW, the graph shown *specifically* and *intentionally* removes all > > evidence of the *major* observable effect, namely the correlation of > > increasing CO2 and temperature to focus on minor (and possibly > > insignificant) fluctuation relationships between CO2 levels at Mauna > > Loa and global temperature *after* one removes the major effect. > > The fact that both are rising tells you nothing about which leads or > lags. And the fact that they both rise does not prove correlation. > There are all kinds of things that have risen with respect to time > that have nothing to do with each other. If anything the fact that > these minor deviations relate to each other supports that there is a > correlation. It just doesn't happen to be in the way you would like > to see it. As for this being a minor effect, the AGW signal gets > swamped by normal fluctuations. Does that make it insignificant? > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1992 > > > > and > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/from:1992 > > > > Not sure what the math behind the isolate command is > > > Neither am I. That is why I question why it was used. > > It was used to get rid of the accumulating trend. The temp and co2 > lines did not have the same slope because they are measured in > different units. If you want to compare details on them you need to > be able to match them up. The easiest way to do that was to remove > the slopes from both lines and scale one to about the same magnitude > as the other. I could make an educated guess at the math behind the > command but I'm not going to bother. If you really want to know the > exact method just download the source code from the site for free. > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/software > > > > but the peaks are > > > at the same dates while the trend has been removed. Still it looks > > > like monthly dat, so do mean:12 to get rid of yearly cycles. > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/from:1992/mean:12 > > > > or > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958 > > > > Now look at the raw data again. > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1958 > > > > The spikes show up in cycles there as well, and it's not so surprising > > > that 2010 had a spike. > > > > Getting back to the lag graph, the two lines would have different > > > slopes due to different offsets. It is easier to match them up by > > > removing the slope. There could very well be a lag in the yearly > > > cycles. > > > And that, in itself, could explain the pattern. > > I'm all ears if you want to try to explain how that works. While you > are at it explain where the spikes every 4 or 5 years come from > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1992 > > That is a plot of the monthly data just as it comes from GISS. I > think you are going to have a hard time explaining those spikes using > yearly cycles alone. > > > > The max co2 shows up 3 months after the min temp of winter, > > > and min co2 shows up 3 months after max temp of summer at Mauna Loa. > > > But there a other things that work on a yearly cycle. Better to look > > > at longer cycles where the affects go deeper into the water and there > > > is more lag. > > > > Anyway, as far as I can see it all looks legit. > > > It might be, but not the way it was presented. Specifically, it was > > used to claim that CO2 increases after temperature increases and > > implied that this meant that *all* the excess CO2 in the atmosphere > > came from CO2 released from the ocean and thus the correlation between > > CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature is mixing up cause and effect. > > When I first presented the graph I wrote > > "This graph shows that the level of atmospheric co2 in a large part is > controlled by the global temperature, most likely due to the > absorption and expelling of co2 from the surface layer of the ocean." > > Yes, the graph was used to support the claim that co2 increases after > temperature increases. What's wrong with that? After thinking a little bit more, I think that what the graph really shows is something similar to the lag seen in the annual cycle of CO2 levels. The annual cycle arises because there is a growing season, during which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere to produce plant and animal material, and a decaying season, during which CO2 is generated by dead and decaying material. What this graph does is to *first* remove all evidence of the increase of atmospheric CO2 *and* all evidence of the increase of temperature related to that increase (which is why the line is flat). This, of course, is the change that is relevant to global warming. *Second*, it averages out changes in CO2 and temperature over the course of a year. What remains, then, are changes in averaged temperature and averaged CO2 levels that are NOT due to either annual changes or changes due to the secular increase in temperature and CO2 due to the input of fossil fuels. That is, we are looking at fluctuations that occur because some sets of years have better/longer growing potential than others and more growth will be followed by more decay. There is NO evidence that most/ any of the CO2 release is primarily due to oceans. This is all that this graph means, AFAICT. That the fluctuation in the equilibrium level of atmospheric CO2 is not *entirely* explained by annual trends or trends due to the secular increase in atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuels. That there is a small fraction of CO2 atmospheric levels that involve multi-year cycles of uptake and outgo from the sink of plant and animal materials. BFD. > It uses the same raw > data used to support AGW theory. That's how science works, you study > the data and see what it tells you. As for the second part of your > statement I most definitely did not say or mean to imply that *all* > the excess co2 was released from the ocean. All I have said is that > the co2 level is affected by the temp. That is pretty well > established by the observed fact that the changes in co2 level track > the temp with a lag, not the other way around. Based on that it's not > much of a reach to say that a good share of the yearly cycle of the > co2 level observed is due to temperture changes, and those are of much > greater magnitude then the longer cycles we were looking at. And the annual cycle (which is in equilibrium) is much greater, in a quantitative sense, than the multiyear fluctuations you are looking at in that graph. *And* the change due to the increased input of CO2 from fossil fuel burning in the atmosphere/upper ocean system is even greater in magnitude. Of course, in the graph you presented, *both* the annual and fossil fuel contributions are mathematically removed so that you can *see* the minor impact of multi-year changes in atmospheric CO2 that occur when those *major* factors are removed. > > > It could, in fact, be nothing but a lag artifact. > > If you wish to invoke things like that you need to show how. I > supported the graph I presented. It works both ways.> > If you can think of a > > > different reason for the close match of the cycles and the lag I would > > > like to hear it. > > > > That's all I have time for right now. Later :)
From: hersheyh on 1 Aug 2010 10:47 On Jul 31, 10:00 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Jul 31, 6:52 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 8:32 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 11:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 18, 4:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 18, 1:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 10:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 12:22 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 11:26 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:24:55 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> < snip far left anti-American political rant > > > > > > > > > > > > This is what was snipped by the winger dinger: > > > > > > > > > > Wow. A childish, immature and irrelevant argumentum ad hominem that shows > > > > > > > > > that you're politically motivated (you desire a nanny state and want to > > > > > > > > > suckle off Uncle Sam's hairy teats), immature, and have a low level of > > > > > > > > > intelligence. > > > > > > > > > > < snip the bad analogy fallacy comparing prisons to science in arguing > > > > > > > > > why everyone should stop thinking and listen to (socialist) authorities.> > > > > > > > > > > First of all, your silly analogy fails. Prisons are not science. Science > > > > > > > > > is observation, hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and accept or reject the > > > > > > > > > hypothesis based on the results of the test. It is a continuous process. > > > > > > > > > A well known example is classical mechanics; it was tested and proven to > > > > > > > > > be a useful theory up until the beginning of the 20th century, when it > > > > > > > > > began to fail. Then new theories, like QM and SR, were developed to > > > > > > > > > predict where CM failed. > > > > > > > > > > AS science goes, AGW is a fail. The predictions of the late 1990s failed > > > > > > > > > to predict the non-warming of the next decade. In science, that is called > > > > > > > > > "the rejected hypothesis". Further, Svensmark keyed on the stronger > > > > > > > > > correlation between solar cycle and climate change and found the physical > > > > > > > > > mechanism and verified his theory at CERN. His theory not only explains > > > > > > > > > climate change for the last 4 billion years, but the hemispherical > > > > > > > > > effects of climate change, the solar correlation, and the observed > > > > > > > > > climate change on other planets that AGW fails to predict.. The increase > > > > > > > > > in CO2 is then explained by simple chemistry: a warmer ocean holds less > > > > > > > > > CO2 and dissolves more carbonate into CO2. CO2 is an EFFECT, not a cause, > > > > > > > > > of warming. At this point, one applies Occam's Razor. > > > > > > > > > What exactly, then, if the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere > > > > > > > > is due to the release of carbon from the ocean, makes *all* the > > > > > > > > gigatons of anthropogenically-generated CO2 disappear from the > > > > > > > > atmosphere? The usual estimates of the amount of CO2 produced > > > > > > > > anthropogenically comes up with numbers that are *larger* than (about > > > > > > > > double) the observed amount from anthropogenic sources (leading to the > > > > > > > > idea that the "missing" anthropogenic CO2 is being absorbed by the > > > > > > > > oceans, which are the only sink with sufficiently fast rate of uptake > > > > > > > > and capacity). Now you are saying that the oceans are not the sink > > > > > > > > for the missing part of the amount of anthropogenically produced CO2, > > > > > > > > but actually is the *source* of the observed increase in atmospheric > > > > > > > > CO2. If that is so, where did *all* the anthropogenic CO2 produced > > > > > > > > during the industrial age go? It's missing! It had to go somewhere. > > > > > > > > Should we put out a missing gas announcement? Where is it? > > > > > > > > This graph shows that the level of atmospheric co2 in a large part is > > > > > > > controlled by the global temperature, most likely due to the > > > > > > > absorption and expelling of co2 from the surface layer of the ocean. > > > > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.... > > > > > > > There is an annual cycle to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Not > > > > > > surprisingly, the CO2 low is in late summer and the high is in late > > > > > > winter in the Northern hemisphere and is due to the different rates of > > > > > > uptake and outgo due to the growing season. Fossil fuel CO2 is an > > > > > > addition to this cycle. > > > > > > First let me thank you for your response. It shows a lot more thought > > > > > than the slurs and insults that are being posted here almost to the > > > > > exclusion of all else. > > > > > > I'm not sure how your description of an annual cycle applies to the > > > > > graph I posted. > > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.... > > > > > > Those are multi year cycles. > > > > > So is the analysis I present below. And if the one for CO2 at Mauna > > > > Loa looks familiar, that is because it is. I looked at the other > > > > temperature measures, and they looked pretty similar to the one in my > > > > graph. > > > > Your graph? I don't see where you posted a graph or presented an > > > analysis with multi year cycles. > > > > > Clearly *someone* is manipulating the raw data (see below) to > > > > *somehow* to generate the data you *claim* represents CO2 and > > > > temperature. It is not at all clear what the manipulations of the raw > > > > CO2 data and raw temperature data are. *CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT > > > > EXPLAIN* how the raw data was manipulated to get the graph above? > > > > Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Unlike some here I have a > > > life. > > > > The graph was not my creation. I first saw it posted in a thread here > > > in alt.global-warming. Pretty sure it was this one > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/ee7c23ff6a25d28.... > > > > Being a skeptic I was at first skeptical ;-) > > > > I ploted the raw data to see if it looked right. Here is co2 data > > > showing the yearly cycles. > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:1/magnitude/from:1958 > > > > Plotting the mean of each data point just plots the points. > > > > Take the mean of 12 points andy you get a floating yearly average. > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/magnitude/from:1958 > > > > Looks about right copared to > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg > > > > Here is GISS temp monthly > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1 > > > > yearly > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12 > > > > and 5 year > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:60 > > > > So the site is using the correct data. > > > > Looking at the graph > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0..... > > > > it was pretty obvious the yearly cycles weren't shown. As shown above > > > those were taken out using the mean:12 command. It looked like the > > > rising trend had been removed, making it easier to see multi year > > > cycles. To check I tried > > > IOW, the graph shown *specifically* and *intentionally* removes all > > evidence of the *major* observable effect, namely the correlation of > > increasing CO2 and temperature to focus on minor (and possibly > > insignificant) fluctuation relationships between CO2 levels at Mauna > > Loa and global temperature *after* one removes the major effect. > > The fact that both are rising tells you nothing about which leads or > lags. And the fact that they both rise does not prove correlation. So, to what do you attribute the rise of both atmospheric CO2 *and* ocean CO2 over the last 50 years, if not the burning of fossil fuels? To what do you attribute the global rise in temperature over the same time frame? > There are all kinds of things that have risen with respect to time > that have nothing to do with each other. If anything the fact that > these minor deviations relate to each other supports that there is a > correlation. It just doesn't happen to be in the way you would like > to see it. As for this being a minor effect, the AGW signal gets > swamped by normal fluctuations. Does that make it insignificant? The AGW signals (both CO2 and temperature) are not swamped by even annual fluctuations (much less the even tinier multiyear fluctuations your graph shows) over the 50 year time frame. That is why you had to remove them to see the multiyear fluctuations in the exchange between rapid exchange sink (mostly plant material) and the atmosphere. > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1992 > > > > and > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/from:1992 > > > > Not sure what the math behind the isolate command is > > > Neither am I. That is why I question why it was used. > > It was used to get rid of the accumulating trend. The temp and co2 > lines did not have the same slope because they are measured in > different units. If you want to compare details on them you need to > be able to match them up. The easiest way to do that was to remove > the slopes from both lines and scale one to about the same magnitude > as the other. I could make an educated guess at the math behind the > command but I'm not going to bother. If you really want to know the > exact method just download the source code from the site for free. IOW, you get rid of the major observable trend over 50 years and the major observable annual trend in order to focus on minor multiyear fluctuations in the exchange between atmospheric CO2 and some sink (probably NOT the ocean, per se, but plant material, whether oceanic or land). > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/software > > > > > > > > but the peaks are > > > at the same dates while the trend has been removed. Still it looks > > > like monthly dat, so do mean:12 to get rid of yearly cycles. > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/from:1992/mean:12 > > > > or > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958 > > > > Now look at the raw data again. > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1958 > > > > The spikes show up in cycles there as well, and it's not so surprising > > > that 2010 had a spike. > > > > Getting back to the lag graph, the two lines would have different > > > slopes due to different offsets. It is easier to match them up by > > > removing the slope. There could very well be a lag in the yearly > > > cycles. > > > And that, in itself, could explain the pattern. > > I'm all ears if you want to try to explain how that works. While you > are at it explain where the spikes every 4 or 5 years come from > > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1992 > > That is a plot of the monthly data just as it comes from GISS. I > think you are going ... > > read more »
From: Bruce Richmond on 1 Aug 2010 12:41
On Aug 1, 10:37 am, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 31, 10:00 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 31, 6:52 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 8:32 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 18, 11:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 18, 4:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 1:54 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 10:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 12:22 pm, hersheyh <hershe...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 11:26 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:24:55 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> < snip far left anti-American political rant > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is what was snipped by the winger dinger: > > > > > > > > > > > Wow. A childish, immature and irrelevant argumentum ad hominem that shows > > > > > > > > > > that you're politically motivated (you desire a nanny state and want to > > > > > > > > > > suckle off Uncle Sam's hairy teats), immature, and have a low level of > > > > > > > > > > intelligence. > > > > > > > > > > > < snip the bad analogy fallacy comparing prisons to science in arguing > > > > > > > > > > why everyone should stop thinking and listen to (socialist) authorities.> > > > > > > > > > > > First of all, your silly analogy fails. Prisons are not science. Science > > > > > > > > > > is observation, hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and accept or reject the > > > > > > > > > > hypothesis based on the results of the test. It is a continuous process. > > > > > > > > > > A well known example is classical mechanics; it was tested and proven to > > > > > > > > > > be a useful theory up until the beginning of the 20th century, when it > > > > > > > > > > began to fail. Then new theories, like QM and SR, were developed to > > > > > > > > > > predict where CM failed. > > > > > > > > > > > AS science goes, AGW is a fail. The predictions of the late 1990s failed > > > > > > > > > > to predict the non-warming of the next decade. In science, that is called > > > > > > > > > > "the rejected hypothesis". Further, Svensmark keyed on the stronger > > > > > > > > > > correlation between solar cycle and climate change and found the physical > > > > > > > > > > mechanism and verified his theory at CERN. His theory not only explains > > > > > > > > > > climate change for the last 4 billion years, but the hemispherical > > > > > > > > > > effects of climate change, the solar correlation, and the observed > > > > > > > > > > climate change on other planets that AGW fails to predict. The increase > > > > > > > > > > in CO2 is then explained by simple chemistry: a warmer ocean holds less > > > > > > > > > > CO2 and dissolves more carbonate into CO2. CO2 is an EFFECT, not a cause, > > > > > > > > > > of warming. At this point, one applies Occam's Razor. > > > > > > > > > > What exactly, then, if the observed increase in CO2 in the atmosphere > > > > > > > > > is due to the release of carbon from the ocean, makes *all* the > > > > > > > > > gigatons of anthropogenically-generated CO2 disappear from the > > > > > > > > > atmosphere? The usual estimates of the amount of CO2 produced > > > > > > > > > anthropogenically comes up with numbers that are *larger* than (about > > > > > > > > > double) the observed amount from anthropogenic sources (leading to the > > > > > > > > > idea that the "missing" anthropogenic CO2 is being absorbed by the > > > > > > > > > oceans, which are the only sink with sufficiently fast rate of uptake > > > > > > > > > and capacity). Now you are saying that the oceans are not the sink > > > > > > > > > for the missing part of the amount of anthropogenically produced CO2, > > > > > > > > > but actually is the *source* of the observed increase in atmospheric > > > > > > > > > CO2. If that is so, where did *all* the anthropogenic CO2 produced > > > > > > > > > during the industrial age go? It's missing! It had to go somewhere. > > > > > > > > > Should we put out a missing gas announcement? Where is it? > > > > > > > > > This graph shows that the level of atmospheric co2 in a large part is > > > > > > > > controlled by the global temperature, most likely due to the > > > > > > > > absorption and expelling of co2 from the surface layer of the ocean. > > > > > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.... > > > > > > > > There is an annual cycle to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Not > > > > > > > surprisingly, the CO2 low is in late summer and the high is in late > > > > > > > winter in the Northern hemisphere and is due to the different rates of > > > > > > > uptake and outgo due to the growing season. Fossil fuel CO2 is an > > > > > > > addition to this cycle. > > > > > > > First let me thank you for your response. It shows a lot more thought > > > > > > than the slurs and insults that are being posted here almost to the > > > > > > exclusion of all else. > > > > > > > I'm not sure how your description of an annual cycle applies to the > > > > > > graph I posted. > > > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.... > > > > > > > Those are multi year cycles. > > > > > > So is the analysis I present below. And if the one for CO2 at Mauna > > > > > Loa looks familiar, that is because it is. I looked at the other > > > > > temperature measures, and they looked pretty similar to the one in my > > > > > graph. > > > > > Your graph? I don't see where you posted a graph or presented an > > > > analysis with multi year cycles. > > > > > > Clearly *someone* is manipulating the raw data (see below) to > > > > > *somehow* to generate the data you *claim* represents CO2 and > > > > > temperature. It is not at all clear what the manipulations of the raw > > > > > CO2 data and raw temperature data are. *CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT > > > > > EXPLAIN* how the raw data was manipulated to get the graph above? > > > > > Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Unlike some here I have a > > > > life. > > > > > The graph was not my creation. I first saw it posted in a thread here > > > > in alt.global-warming. Pretty sure it was this one > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/ee7c23ff6a25d28... > > > > > Being a skeptic I was at first skeptical ;-) > > > > > I ploted the raw data to see if it looked right. Here is co2 data > > > > showing the yearly cycles. > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:1/magnitude/from:1958 > > > > > Plotting the mean of each data point just plots the points. > > > > > Take the mean of 12 points andy you get a floating yearly average. > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/magnitude/from:1958 > > > > > Looks about right copared to > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg > > > > > Here is GISS temp monthly > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1 > > > > > yearly > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12 > > > > > and 5 year > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:60 > > > > > So the site is using the correct data. > > > > > Looking at the graph > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0..... > > > > > it was pretty obvious the yearly cycles weren't shown. As shown above > > > > those were taken out using the mean:12 command. It looked like the > > > > rising trend had been removed, making it easier to see multi year > > > > cycles. To check I tried > > > > IOW, the graph shown *specifically* and *intentionally* removes all > > > evidence of the *major* observable effect, namely the correlation of > > > increasing CO2 and temperature to focus on minor (and possibly > > > insignificant) fluctuation relationships between CO2 levels at Mauna > > > Loa and global temperature *after* one removes the major effect. > > > The fact that both are rising tells you nothing about which leads or > > lags. And the fact that they both rise does not prove correlation. > > There are all kinds of things that have risen with respect to time > > that have nothing to do with each other. If anything the fact that > > these minor deviations relate to each other supports that there is a > > correlation. It just doesn't happen to be in the way you would like > > to see it. As for this being a minor effect, the AGW signal gets > > swamped by normal fluctuations. Does that make it insignificant? > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1992 > > > > > and > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/from:1992 > > > > > Not sure what the math behind the isolate command is > > > > Neither am I. That is why I question why it was used. > > > It was used to get rid of the accumulating trend. The temp and co2 > > lines did not have the same slope because they are measured in > > different units. If you want to compare details on them you need to > > be able to match them up. The easiest way to do that was to remove > > the slopes from both lines and scale one to about the same magnitude > > as the other. I could make an educated guess at the math behind the > > command but I'm not going to bother. If you really want to know the > > exact method just download the source code from the site for free. > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/software > > > > > but the peaks are > > > > at the same dates while the trend has been removed. Still it looks > > > > like monthly dat, so do mean:12 to get rid of yearly cycles. > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/from:1992/mean:12 > > > > > or > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958 > > > > > Now look at the raw data again. > > > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1958 > > > > > The spikes show up in cycles there as well, and it's not so surprising > > > > that 2010 had a spike. > > > > > Getting back to the lag graph, the two lines would have different > > > > slopes due to different offsets. It is easier to match them up by > > > > removing the slope. There could very well be a lag in the yearly > > > > cycles. > > > > And that, in itself, could explain the pattern. > > > I'm all ears if you want to try to explain how that works. While you > > are at it explain where the spikes every 4 or 5 years come from > > >http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1992 > > > That is a plot of the monthly data just as it comes from GISS. I > > think you are going to have a hard time explaining those spikes using > > yearly cycles alone. > > > > > The max co2 shows up 3 months after the min temp of winter, > > > > and min co2 shows up 3 months after max temp of summer at Mauna Loa.. > > > > But there a other things that work on a yearly cycle. Better to look > > > > at longer cycles where the affects go deeper into the water and there > > > > is more lag. > > > > > Anyway, as far as I can see it all looks legit. > > > > It might be, but not the way it was presented. Specifically, it was > > > used to claim that CO2 increases after temperature increases and > > > implied that this meant that *all* the excess CO2 in the atmosphere > > > came from CO2 released from the ocean and thus the correlation between > > > CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature is mixing up cause and effect. > > > When I first presented the graph I wrote > > > "This graph shows that the level of atmospheric co2 in a large part is > > controlled by the global temperature, most likely due to the > > absorption and expelling of co2 from the surface layer of the ocean." > > > Yes, the graph was used to support the claim that co2 increases after > > temperature increases. What's wrong with that? > > After thinking a little bit more, I think that what the graph really > shows is something similar to the lag seen in the annual cycle of CO2 > levels. The annual cycle arises because there is a growing season, > during which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere to produce plant and > animal material, and a decaying season, during which CO2 is generated > by dead and decaying material. Show me the math that creates the 4 to 5 year cycles in the raw data. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:1/from:1992 If you can't do that you are just blowing smoke. > What this graph does is to *first* > remove all evidence of the increase of atmospheric CO2 *and* all > evidence of the increase of temperature related to that increase > (which is why the line is flat). It does not remove *all* evidence or there would be no signal left. > This, of course, is the change that > is relevant to global warming. Which is not what we were looking for. We were looking for evidence of which signal was lagging the other. I'm starting to think you have ADD. > *Second*, it averages out changes in > CO2 and temperature over the course of a year. What remains, then, > are changes in averaged temperature and averaged CO2 levels that are > NOT due to either annual changes Yes, there are too many things that could be affecting annual cycles so we are looking at longer cycles. > or changes due to the secular > increase in temperature and CO2 due to the input of fossil fuels. What part of the explaination that you cannot tell which is lagging when both are rising do you not understand? To determine which lags you need to find where both respond to the same input. We might not know what caused those spikes in the temperture every 4 to 5 years, but we can see that the co2 level didn't respond until after the temperature change. The most reasonable explaination for the change in co2 was that it was responding to the change in temp. If you have a better explaination I'm all ears. I don't buy it that the 4 to 5 year co2 peaks that match up with the temp peaks above are created by annual plant growth. You're grasping at straws. > That is, we are looking at fluctuations that occur because some sets > of years have better/longer growing potential than others and more > growth will be followed by more decay. There is NO evidence that most/ > any of the CO2 release is primarily due to oceans. If you are talking about the over all increase in co2 then I never made that claim. If you are talking about the co2 peaks that match up with the temp peaks I think the evidence is pretty strong. To use the AGW line, "What else could it be?" > This is all that > this graph means, AFAICT. That the fluctuation in the equilibrium > level of atmospheric CO2 is not *entirely* explained by annual trends > or trends due to the secular increase in atmospheric CO2 from fossil > fuels. That there is a small fraction of CO2 atmospheric levels that > involve multi-year cycles of uptake and outgo from the sink of plant > and animal materials. BFD. And it just happens to cooincide with temp fluctuations. Yeah, right ;) > > It uses the same raw > > data used to support AGW theory. That's how science works, you study > > the data and see what it tells you. As for the second part of your > > statement I most definitely did not say or mean to imply that *all* > > the excess co2 was released from the ocean. All I have said is that > > the co2 level is affected by the temp. That is pretty well > > established by the observed fact that the changes in co2 level track > > the temp with a lag, not the other way around. Based on that it's not > > much of a reach to say that a good share of the yearly cycle of the > > co2 level observed is due to temperture changes, and those are of much > > greater magnitude then the longer cycles we were looking at. > > And the annual cycle (which is in equilibrium) is much greater, in a > quantitative sense, than the multiyear fluctuations you are looking at > in that graph. The annual temperature cycle around here ranges from 100°F to -40°F. Does that mean a few hundreths of a degree annual increase due to GW doesn't matter? > *And* the change due to the increased input of CO2 > from fossil fuel burning in the atmosphere/upper ocean system is even > greater in magnitude. Of course, in the graph you presented, *both* > the annual and fossil fuel contributions are mathematically removed so > that you can *see* the minor impact of multi-year changes in > atmospheric CO2 that occur when those *major* factors are removed. The exact same thing is done to show the tiny changes due to GW. Are you saying there is something wrong with that technique? > > > It could, in fact, be nothing but a lag artifact. > > > If you wish to invoke things like that you need to show how. I > > supported the graph I presented. It works both ways.> > If you can think of a > > > > different reason for the close match of the cycles and the lag I would > > > > like to hear it. > > > > > That's all I have time for right now. Later :) |