RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,768
Posts: 5,434,108
Members: 24,840
Currently online: 608
Newest member: Reece101

TrekToday headlines

The Art of John Alvin Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 23

Episode Four of The Red Shirt Diaries
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Star Trek: The Compendium Review
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Orci Drops Rangers Project
By: T'Bonz on Sep 22

Retro Review: Image in the Sand
By: Michelle on Sep 20

Star Trek: Shadows Of Tyranny Casting Call
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

USS Vengeance And More Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek 3 To Being Shooting Next Year
By: T'Bonz on Sep 19

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > TV & Media

TV & Media Non-Trek television, movies, books, music, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 9 2014, 01:16 AM   #796
Ancient Mariner
Rear Admiral
 
Ancient Mariner's Avatar
 
Location: Sailing for adventure on the Big Blue Wet Thing™
View Ancient Mariner's Twitter Profile
Re: Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

gturner wrote: View Post
Going by HadCRUT CRUTEM4, 1998 had a temperature anomaly of 0.835 C, while so far 2014 has an anomaly of 0.762 C (2013 was 0.791), and the people born in 1998 are turning 16 and hitting our highways - on a planet that's cooler than when they were born.
Another cherry-picking post, using only one set of data to ignore all other data and make a scientifically false statement.

It's a shame because the first part of the post was an accurate description of the data - namely that data sets aren't in 100% agreement but the aggregate of those data sets shows a continued increase. But by focusing on only one data set and ignoring the conclusions of your own source (that the combined data represent a 0.05C increase), as well as ignoring some of the subsequent scientific alterations to the data (including missing arctic data which places the increase at 0.12C, for example) your post is simply more of the same sensationalist misrepresentation.
__________________
Ancient Mariner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 04:17 AM   #797
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

You're just babbling.

CRUTEM is the data set built by the people of Climategate fame. I'm picking that data set because it would be the one dearest to a warmist's heart, even though it's not going to show much significant difference from the dataset maintained by the NCDC in Asheville, NASA GISS, or any other data set, because they all use the same set of inputs. Pick a data set, any data set, and I'll be able to make the same point, with a slight difference in the second or third significant digits.

The IPCC AR5 data doesn't say that this year might be warmer than 1998, because it isn't. Their estimates of the temperature rise are based on curve fitting, end points, and other mathematical measures to try and extract a signal from the noisy year-to-year variations. You don't pick two random points on a sine wave or audio waveform and use the slope between the two points as a measure of an underlying linear phenomenon without doing a whole bunch more math, with curve fitting and regression and a ton of other tools. Since the waveform sample is necessarily pretty short, you get pretty big error bars no matter what technique you use, yet you can definitively say that, based on the data, a given year is hotter or cooler than 1998, at least at the points sampled, at the times those samples were taken.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 04:44 AM   #798
Ancient Mariner
Rear Admiral
 
Ancient Mariner's Avatar
 
Location: Sailing for adventure on the Big Blue Wet Thing™
View Ancient Mariner's Twitter Profile
Re: Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

gturner wrote: View Post
You're just babbling.

CRUTEM is the data set built by the people of Climategate fame. I'm picking that data set because it would be the one dearest to a warmist's heart, even though it's not going to show much significant difference from the dataset maintained by the NCDC in Asheville, NASA GISS, or any other data set, because they all use the same set of inputs. Pick a data set, any data set, and I'll be able to make the same point, with a slight difference in the second or third significant digits.

The IPCC AR5 data doesn't say that this year might be warmer than 1998, because it isn't. Their estimates of the temperature rise are based on curve fitting, end points, and other mathematical measures to try and extract a signal from the noisy year-to-year variations. You don't pick two random points on a sine wave or audio waveform and use the slope between the two points as a measure of an underlying linear phenomenon without doing a whole bunch more math, with curve fitting and regression and a ton of other tools. Since the waveform sample is necessarily pretty short, you get pretty big error bars no matter what technique you use, yet you can definitively say that, based on the data, a given year is hotter or cooler than 1998, at least at the points sampled, at the times those samples were taken.
Talk about a babbling post.

The IPCC (and science, in general) is not like the Bible. One can't simply pick and choose which passages (or findings) to quote, while ignoring the others. Yet again, your post ignores (or marginalizes) the accumulation of multiple data sets and mitigating factors, cited in your repeatedly offered IPCC report, which find that, yes, there is a continuing (albeit reduced) warming trend. And, too, your post further ignores the other scientific conclusions explaining the reduced rate of warming.
__________________
Ancient Mariner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 05:07 AM   #799
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

Ancient Mariner wrote: View Post
Talk about a babbling post.

The IPCC (and science, in general) is not like the Bible. One can't simply pick and choose which passages (or findings) to quote, while ignoring the others. Yet again, your post ignores (or marginalizes) the accumulation of multiple data sets and mitigating factors, cited in your repeatedly offered IPCC report, which find that, yes, there is a continuing (albeit reduced) warming trend. And, too, your post further ignores the other scientific conclusions explaining the reduced rate of warming.
Um, then how do climatologists pick which findings to cite, while ignoring others? And what multiple data sets am I ignoring? I've mentioned CRUTEM from the Hadley Center at East Anglia, the National Climactic Data Center (NCDC), and NASA GISS. I could've mentioned the Berkley Earth dataset, but didn't. Is there some set of magic data sets that only you know about? Please share if so. If there was any data set that didn't show the pause, alarmist climatologists would be posting it all over the Internet, so it should be easy for you to find.

Please also share the conclusion that explain the reduced rate of warming, because I'd like to be the first to offer those up to the community of climatologists, since at this point they only have conjectures and a few hypotheses, some of which are mutually exclusive, and none of which has much if any actually supporting data as yet, which is why they keep offering up new ideas as to the cause of the pause, even as we speak. There are many things that could potentially cause such an event, but no conclusion has been reached.

As some top climatologists have pointed out, some of the conjectures that the warming is being masked by natural variations also mean that if natural variations are that large, then they could also be responsible for the bulk of the warming during the previous two decades, so some of the explanations are also a poison pill for the global warming movement.

One of the more obvious explanations for the pause is that the global temperature goes up when El-Ninos are dominant over La-Ninas, goes down when La-Ninas are dominant, and holds steady when they're about equally matched. Since 1998 they've been equally matched, as they were shortly after the 1940's. Problem solved.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 06:16 AM   #800
Ancient Mariner
Rear Admiral
 
Ancient Mariner's Avatar
 
Location: Sailing for adventure on the Big Blue Wet Thing™
View Ancient Mariner's Twitter Profile
Re: Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

And yet again, we have post that ignores the vast majority of evidence ... all of which has already been presented to you and anyone else reading the thread. And since this data clearly indicates overwhelming evidence for global warming over the period of centuries, any fluctuations of decades, is hardly enough to refute these conclusions - much less offer a "poison pill" for global warming (especially considering the fluctuations still demonstrate ongoing warming).

Look, it's pretty clear to anyone who wants to objectively view the entire set of data, that global warming is real and it's happening right now. Whether or not your posts engage with this reality is not something I can't control. And, unfortunately, it's pretty obvious what kind of pattern your posts present: make sweeping, sensationalist, often factually erroneous statements and, when pressed, offer only minimal support that ignores the rest of the data.

That's clearly not science. Your posts are, however, welcome to join the legitimate scientific discussion ... whenever they objectively represent the totality of data, evidence and scientific conclusions.
__________________

Last edited by Ancient Mariner; May 9 2014 at 06:33 AM.
Ancient Mariner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 07:29 AM   #801
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

Ancient Mariner wrote: View Post
And yet again, we have post that ignores the vast majority of evidence ... all of which has already been presented to you and anyone else reading the thread.
Um, can you perhaps link back to where this evidence was linked? You've talked about overwhelming evidence but haven't really cited anything other than the IPCC summary for policymakers, which is itself pretty void of data.

And since this data clearly indicates overwhelming evidence for global warming over the period of centuries, any fluctuations of decades, is hardly enough to refute these conclusions - much less offer a "poison pill" for global warming (especially considering the fluctuations still demonstrate ongoing warming).
If global warming has been going on for centuries, it pretty much refutes the idea that CO2 emissions are the cause, since the climatologists conclude that they couldn't have played any major role in temperature variations until sometime after WW-II. So thanks!

Look, it's pretty clear to anyone who wants to objectively view the entire set of data, that global warming is real and it's happening right now.
Well no, it's not happening now or it would be showing up in the entire set of data as warming, which it hasn't done since 1998. Since then it's just shown up as warm, withing out the "ing."

Whether or not your posts engage with this reality is not something I can't control. And, unfortunately, it's pretty obvious what kind of pattern your posts present: make sweeping, sensationalist, often factually erroneous statements and, when pressed, offer only minimal support that ignores the rest of the data.
Project much?

You apparently don't even bother to look at the data, much less have the slightest clue that there a "rest of" it.

And if you would be so kind as to point to the factually inaccurate statement I made. So far I've backed up most anything I've said with hard data from the CRU at the UEA, but am willing to back it up with hard data from the NCDC, NASA, Berkley Earth, or any other organization, and I've backed up my statements about the internal workings of the IPCC with links to interviews with IPCC lead authors, while backing up another comment with a link to an interview with the 10th most cited scientist who is still alive and publishing, and who happens to be a climatologist.

That's clearly not science. Your posts are, however, welcome to join the legitimate scientific discussion ... whenever they objectively represent the totality of data, evidence and scientific conclusions.
And there's the problem. The warmists try to redefine science as a religion, ruling out any contradictory evidence, however sound and from whatever source, that questions their unscientifically absurd apocalyptic beliefs. This is something that many climatologists are unequivocal about denouncing, because science can't advance if anyone who deviates from the catechism put out by Earth First or Greenpeace is denounced as anti-science. That's how Nazi science worked, and that's how Lysenkoism worked. That's how all sorts of bizarre cults work. You're a charter member. You won't look at the science, you just propound at what you guess the science is, and do so without the slightest clue as to what the data shows, because you don't actually care about reality, you care about a wacko religious narrative about sin and pollution, one which probably involves the evil Koch brothers and BushCheneyHaliburton, along with something about polar bears and tree fairies.

Science really isn't for people like you, who ignore data, don't pay attention to what's going on, don't follow the literature, don't dig into the various models and papers, yet argue from complete ignorance about what the science is actually showing, blissfully unaware of what positions and opinions the climatologists are actually putting forth.

You have to read an analyze the actual papers. A few weeks ago I gave a pretty devastating critique of the flaws in the Neukom et al paper on that purported to be the first multi-proxy millennial Southern Hemisphere temperature study, which was none of that. It only had four proxies that gave good coverage for a thousand years, and it blended those with six other proxies, most of which were essentially random noise (showing no trend at all, ever, over a thousand years), and some of which were definitely not proxies for temperature, like a proxy for a local Antarctic ice sheet, which is definitely not a proxy for global temperature or we'd be screaming about the coming ice age, because the Antarctic ice extent is stubbornly backwards regarding the modern surface temperature record, and on top of that Antarctic ice extent shifts around, shrinking in one area as it expands in another. The Neukom paper's good proxies were from earlier studies in South America (Chile and Peru), and those cited studies found a big Medieval Warm Period. By mixing those good signals with lots of noise, and then statistically mixing the tiny number of good proxies with over a hundred proxies that didn't extend anywhere near as far back as a thousand years (most were post 1800 AD), Neukom was able to wish away the MWP in the Southern Hemisphere, despite having only evidence that strongly confirmed it, as stated explicitly in the papers he cited for his proxy data. Many top climatologists read my critique, due to where I was posting, so the new perspective on Neukom's paper is that it had some interesting insights about the disconnect between northern and southern hemisphere historical trends, but otherwise is deeply flawed.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 10:28 AM   #802
Gov Kodos
Admiral
 
Gov Kodos's Avatar
 
Location: Gov Kodos Regretably far from Boston
Re: Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

gturner wrote: View Post
Science really isn't for people like you, who ignore data, don't pay attention to what's going on, don't follow the literature, don't dig into the various models and papers, yet argue from complete ignorance about what the science is actually showing, blissfully unaware of what positions and opinions the climatologists are actually putting forth.
Where is this? In what posts did Ancient Mariner do this?
__________________
We are quicksilver, a fleeting shadow, a distant sound... our home has no boundaries beyond which we cannot pass. We live in music, in a flash of color... we live on the wind and in the sparkle of a star! Endora, Bewitched
Gov Kodos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 10:30 AM   #803
Trekker4747
Fleet Admiral
 
Trekker4747's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

Ugh. I have a headache.

...


It's not a TUMAH!
__________________
Out of hope.
Trekker4747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 01:05 PM   #804
Ancient Mariner
Rear Admiral
 
Ancient Mariner's Avatar
 
Location: Sailing for adventure on the Big Blue Wet Thing™
View Ancient Mariner's Twitter Profile
Re: Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson


gturner wrote: View Post
You apparently don't even bother to look at the data, much less have the slightest clue that there a "rest of" it.

You won't look at the science, you just propound at what you guess the science is, and do so without the slightest clue as to what the data shows, because you don't actually care about reality, you care about a wacko religious narrative about sin and pollution, one which probably involves the evil Koch brothers and BushCheneyHaliburton, along with something about polar bears and tree fairies.

Science really isn't for people like you, who ignore data, don't pay attention to what's going on, don't follow the literature, don't dig into the various models and papers, yet argue from complete ignorance about what the science is actually showing, blissfully unaware of what positions and opinions the climatologists are actually putting forth.
So ... we're back to criticizing the poster and not the posts again?

Keep it classy, gturner.

You asked for a source, here it is. There's also this. Until your posts stop cherry-picking one data set, and instead incorporate that data set into the totality of climate change evidence and conclusions (let's just start with the IPCC report, since it's voluminous enough), then it's pretty safe to say your posts are thoroughly unscientific.

If you're looking for a "factually inaccurate statement", then look no further than, "the IPCC summary for policymakers, which is itself pretty void of data" - which you direct toward my my use of the SPM for the Physical Science Basis of the IPCC AR5. As a point of fact, it's fully supported by data which, as I've already shown upthread, is presented in almost the exact same manner as in the TS (which, itself, accurately represents the data in the individual chapters of the report).

Furthermore, upon further inspection, you cited sources criticizing the SPM for "Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability" (Working Group II) and "Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change" (Working Group III) - which are only now just being published - not the SPM for "The Physical Science Basis" (Working Group I) - which is the one I've used as a summation of the evidence.

Still, I invite anyone else to look at the SPM for the Physical Science Basis and determine whether or not they believe it's "pretty void of data."

That'll be a good indicator if one finds your posts to be factually accurate or, as I've contended all along, to be sensationalist, poorly sourced, and unscientific.
__________________
Ancient Mariner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 03:45 PM   #805
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

You linked to the AR5, but if you'd read it you wouldn't have been desperately arguing that there hasn't been a pause, because AR5 discusses the pause. Then you followed your AR5 link with an article saying that two non-climatologists have eliminated the pause by adjusting how Arctic data is handled, saying the Earth has been warming two and a half times faster than was thought by the alarmists at NASA GISS (Hansen), the UAE of Climategate fame, by Berkley Earth, and the NCDC which is so desperate to show warming that they dropped the 1920-1940 temperatures of many US states by over 2 C just this past March.

If your two independent scientists are right, all the other warmists are staggeringly incompetent and should turn in their thermometers. But that didn't happen because the paper didn't stand up to scrutiny, due to several serious flaws. For one, it relies on satellite data to fill in temperature data up to the poles. NASA, NOAA, the UAE and others don't even try to do that because the satellite data doesn't actually cover the poles (the satellites only fly up to 80 degrees latitude), so coverage is minimal, and they don't trust satellite readings taken over sea ice which has a complex microwave signature that throws off the reading. The next flaw is kriging across sea-ice/open ocean and land/ocean boundaries, because those don't often correlate in the ways that kriging requires if it is to produce useful results. There were some other problems with the paper, but those are even more technical than the kriging issue.

And of course the paper is in the same vein as several others that argue that the temperature has to be going up in some place where we're not measuring temperatures, like the Arctic, the deep deep ocean, or the bottom of my sock drawer. It's a variation of the argument about whether the light in your refrigerator stays on when you close the door.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 04:06 PM   #806
Ancient Mariner
Rear Admiral
 
Ancient Mariner's Avatar
 
Location: Sailing for adventure on the Big Blue Wet Thing™
View Ancient Mariner's Twitter Profile
Re: Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

gturner wrote: View Post
You linked to the AR5, but if you'd read it you wouldn't have been desperately arguing that there hasn't been a pause, because AR5 discusses the pause.
Another falsehood. I've never argued that there wasn't a "hiatus". I've merely pointed out the unscientific, sensationalist misrepresentation of the data - saying the earth is cooler, for example, and ignoring other data that demonstrates otherwise - contained in your posts. Your posts are free to discuss the "hiatus", but if they exclude all of the data contained in the AR5, as well as subsequent publications, they'll continue to be just as unscientific and sensationalist as the rest of the one I've just quoted.
__________________
Ancient Mariner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 04:34 PM   #807
Trekker4747
Fleet Admiral
 
Trekker4747's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

Isn't a 20-year "pause" or whatever in climatological change pretty much nothing? That's a nanosecond on a geological timescale.
__________________
Out of hope.
Trekker4747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 04:40 PM   #808
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
Isn't a 20-year "pause" or whatever in climatological change pretty much nothing? That's a nanosecond on a geological timescale.
Right. It's grasping at straws, and typical of the shortsightedness that keeps some people from recognizing the problem. The proof is in the pattern of warming over the centuries since the Industrial Revolution, an overall pattern that exceeds any warming trend for thousands of years (IIRC -- I admit I'm talking from memory here and don't have any specific figures to refer to). Of course there are going to be fluctuations on the scale of years or decades, but those don't disprove the overall trend.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 04:58 PM   #809
Trekker4747
Fleet Admiral
 
Trekker4747's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

Christopher wrote: View Post
Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
Isn't a 20-year "pause" or whatever in climatological change pretty much nothing? That's a nanosecond on a geological timescale.
Right. It's grasping at straws, and typical of the shortsightedness that keeps some people from recognizing the problem. The proof is in the pattern of warming over the centuries since the Industrial Revolution, an overall pattern that exceeds any warming trend for thousands of years (IIRC -- I admit I'm talking from memory here and don't have any specific figures to refer to). Of course there are going to be fluctuations on the scale of years or decades, but those don't disprove the overall trend.
It's like people who say, "So much for global warming!" whenever it gets slightly cool outside. Not realizing there's a difference between weather and climate.

Climate can be generally warming and it can STILL snow in May in the midwest (as it did here last year.)

Now, again, we can debate whether or not this climate change is being caused by humans, is happening naturally or is a combination of both (human activity speeding up the ice age ending) but climate change *is* happening. For better or worse.

But, hey, there was 20 years inside of an entire epoch where the temperature didn't fluctuate much so maybe everything is fine.
__________________
Out of hope.
Trekker4747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 05:02 PM   #810
Squiggy
LORD SHIT SUPREME
 
Squiggy's Avatar
 
Location: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
View Squiggy's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Squiggy
Re: Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
I still don't think Global Warming is a bad thing. Yeah, New York needs to invest in dams, but Sahara is turning green. One loses, one profits. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad.
The problem is the side that loses is the side where EVERYONE LIVES.
__________________
ENOUGH OF THIS TURGID BASH WANKERY!
Squiggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.