Name the Major Flaw In This Signal Processing Analysis Probl

Tom P wrote:
On 12/13/2011 07:18 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article<9kpfq4FquqU1@mid.individual.net>,
Tom P<werotizy@freent.dd> wrote:

On 12/13/2011 06:10 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article<9kngueFj7qU1@mid.individual.net>,
Tom P<werotizy@freent.dd> wrote:

On 12/13/2011 12:13 AM, Tom P wrote:

On 12/12/2011 05:49 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:

Assume the tree ring data is good.


http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh..

.


Bret Cahill


Use of Fourier analysis.


Most would go with the two higher frequencies. The problem is
extrapolating off of the two cycles of the /1300 year frequency.


Bret Cahill





There is another aspect which I cannot understand from the article.
The researchers have presumably found by fourier analysis that
there is
some proxy in the tree-ring data that displays the periodic signals
described- all well and good - but how do they determine the
correlation
between the proxy and the instrumental temperature record? By
Principal
Component Analysis? If so, why are their results any more reliable
than
Briffa's?
Maybe someone with access to the paper can clarify?




Addendum - the paper is accessible, but it refers to yet another paper
for the source of the temperature data for the last 2485 years-
based on
tree-ring analysis, lol. Let the paper chases begin!

BTW I'd like to echo Bret's suspicion as well that particularly
when it
comes to low frequency signals - meaning cycle time comparable with
sample length - you can prove anything you want with fourier analysis.


.... including "hockey stick" tailoffs. If the data are not smooth, the
FFT will go unstable and show a tailoff at the end of the data stream
that does not represent realistic behavior. A common tailoff is the
"hockey stick" shap, popularized by Mann, et. al.


The end of the hockey stick since 1900 is instrumental data. No Fourier
analysis involved. The disputed part is the pre-instrumental part
derived by statistical analysis of proxies, in particular using the PCA
technique. AFAIK no Fourier analysis there either. Correct me if I'm
wrong.
PCA analysis relies on a time overlap between instrumental and proxy
data and attempts to determine which factors in the proxies correlate
with the instrumental data. It' not at all clear to me why anyone
should think that the extremely small changes in global temperatures
should have a detectable effect on tree-ring growth compared with the
major changes in annual growth due to rainfall or cloud cover, let alone
the implicit assumption that there is a linear relationship, without
which the PCA analysis is meaningless.


You need the Fourier analysis just to sort through the data scatter --
even with "instrumental" data, which, BTW, has not covered the Earth
until recent times.


What you have said so far makes little sense. You said:
quote
.... including "hockey stick" tailoffs. If the data are not smooth, the
FFT will go unstable and show a tailoff at the end of the data stream
that does not represent realistic behavior. A common tailoff is the
"hockey stick" shap, popularized by Mann, et. al.
/quote

But the post industrial data is NOT derived from FT analysis, and
moreover Mann's analysis is not based on FFT

So if you say that FFT "goes unstable", why are you now saying that you
need to use it?


Because he's unstable?

Jamie
 
On 14 Des, 22:48, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 12/14/2011 3:13 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:





On 14 Des, 20:07, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org>  wrote:
On 12/14/2011 1:42 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:

    ...

If you talk about 'instrument temperature' as
'temperature as measured with some thermometer'
then this problem applies everywhere: Climate models
talk about trends on centuries and millenium scales,
while reliable meaurements are ony available for
the past dozen of decades.

This is one of my main arguments against the
climatologists: How can they be so sure, when
they have so little reliable data?

The ratios of oxygen isotopes is taken to be a reliable indication of
global temperature. Types of pollen in sediments indicate the types
plants in a region, thereby indicating local temperatures. There's a
certain assurance when these various indicators all point the same way..

And which way is that?

I don't know. When they all point the same way, each imparts credence to
the others.

These records tend to show, like the article that
set this thread off, that things change, and always
have changed. There is nothing to suggest that
there is anything unusual going on, other than that
people have started doing easurements with the
subsequent onset of mass panic.

Winter ice skating was the norm on lakes around here even 40 years ago
and long before that. It hasn't been possible at all for the last 20
years. I don't call that a long-term trend, but records extend it back
in time for another hundred years or so.
The question is not *if* things change. The question
is *why*, what causes the changes.

People who live in the tropics
or the arctic will notice little. Those of us in more temperate areas
see the phenomenon -- whatever it is -- more clearly.
Sure. When I was 6 years old, we climbed up snow drifts
and onto the roofs of houses. No ladders or anything,
just snow. Jumped back down. Last winter I shuffled more
snow in a month than I had done for the previous ten
years combined. But which was about what I had to shuffle
per week at age 12.

But then, the long-term records are interesting: Where
I am, 100 km north of the arctic circle, flora changes
rapidly. Tell me what trees and plants grow where you
are, and I can tell in which region or county you are.
Interestingly, there are pollen records of warm-weather
plants that just don't grow here now. There is anecdotal
evidence of viking-age wildlife, that just isn't anywhere
near here now. There is the Greenland settlement, which
did just fine, from around 1000 AD and for several centuries,
but was abandoned in the 15th century, just at the time
of the onset of the little ice age.

Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
going on.

Rune
 
In sci.math Angelo Campanella <a.campanella@att.net> wrote:
"Orval Fairbairn" <orfairbairn@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eek:rfairbairn-9EFB30.11511514122011@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
......snip..........
...because you can't get smooth data without it. there is too much data
scatter.

Ergo, the variable (global temperature) is a random variable.... and all
serious students of statistics know that any value is possible for a random
variable including MOMENTARY very low and very high values. The culprit here
is the very thought that such any given HIGH value can remain permanent (hot
days every day). It's absurd to express that in public as the present
Democratic administration ninnies are want to do! Throw them out!
Of course "hot days" have a specific definition in absolute, not relative,
terms. I.e. >35C.

So if the average temperature has increased and we know that "global average"
being derrived from essentially the sum of many random variates
implies a good approximation to a Gaussian, then we expect the number
of times a daily max exceeds 35 to increase.

And that is what is observed -- e.g. for Australia:

<http://www.kymhorsell.com/graphs/aus-extreme.html>

--
Scientists are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I
have no tolerance for ambiguity.
It proves that all science is lies and the only thing we can trust is
right wing rhetoric.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nymshifter], 14 Jan 2011 14:46 +1100
 
In sci.math Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
On 14 Des, 18:48, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:37?pm, Clay <c...@claysturner.com> wrote:

?This is a great example that illustrates statistical
clustering and that correlation does not imply causality.

Sure... but relation between CO2 and temperature
isn't a case of somebody going out and looking
for correlation, it follows the scientific method.

You need to read up on the basics. Establishing a
cause-effect relation can not be done by observational
studies. You need to do the experiments.
....

The first "scientific causation" was established via observation.
I.e. the US Surgeon General laid out the case that cigarettes caused
cancer using several kinds of epidemiological studies: prospective,
restrospective, and cross-sectional, given there was an a priori reason
to accept there was a causal link (aka a known mechanism, although not
known in all details).


I'm beginning to suspect the most expedient thing to do is follow a strategy
adopted by the Australian govt during WWII.

At that time AUS had a population of around 10 mn and realised there was
no way to defend its northern borders (given they were 2x the US/Canadian
border) against invasion from Japan.

So there was a secret plan to not defend Australian territory until
an invading army reached a given latitude -- I think it was somewhere down
near Brisbane.

In the same way, let the world adopt a policy of "no defence" until
a certain trigger point.

Given the intelligence of our collective repreasentatives, we need to keep
the terms very simple.

Since latitudes about 50N and below 50S are lightly population and allegedly
will feel the biggest effects first (Alaskans are starting to complain
already), let us allow the expected increase in storms, heatwaves, ice loss,
etc to take out some fraction of the relevant population (e.g. 10%) before we
think to defend the rest of us.

Until that trigger is reached we can just do business as usual or maybe
make whatever minimum preparation is possible without spending anything.

I figure either way CC works out humanity will be ahead and Rush will
surely approve.

--
Scientists are always changing their story and as a Conservative, I
have no tolerance for ambiguity. It proves that all science is lies
and the only thing we can trust is right wing rhetoric.
-- BONZO@27-32-240-172 [daily nymshifter], 14 Jan 2011 14:46 +1100
 
On 15 Des, 01:32, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
In sci.math Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:> On 14 Des, 18:48, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:37?pm, Clay <c...@claysturner.com> wrote:

?This is a great example that illustrates statistical
clustering and that correlation does not imply causality.

Sure... but relation between CO2 and temperature
isn't a case of somebody going out and looking
for correlation, it follows the scientific method.

You need to read up on the basics. Establishing a
cause-effect relation can not be done by observational
studies. You need to do the experiments.

...

The first "scientific causation" was established via observation.
I.e. the US Surgeon General laid out the case that cigarettes caused
cancer using several kinds of epidemiological studies: prospective,
restrospective, and cross-sectional, given there was an a priori reason
to accept there was a causal link (aka a known mechanism, although not
known in all details).
These kinds of studies are quasi-experimental:

- They were not designed experiments in the sense
that subjects were randomly exposed, or not,
to tobacco. The subjects were either smokers
or non-smokers already, which means the study
is subject to bias: Whatever causes the person
to start (or not) to smoke, might also have
influence on whatever factor is studied.

- Experiment-type studies could be carried out
anyway, by comparing smokers with non-smoker
controls. Which was possible since this control
group was available for study.

The problem with global warming is that there is
no control, no 'Tellus 2' which is comparable to
our planet in every way except human industrial
activity.

Rune
 
In sci.math Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
....
These kinds of studies are quasi-experimental:
....

That's science for you.

--
Our research shows a rolling record of the earth's mean surface temperature.
The warming figures reveal a common trend. Since pre-industrial times, all
point to a warming of the earth to around 0.75 degrees.
-- Richard Muller, Jul 16 2011
 
On 15 Des, 10:15, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
In sci.math Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
...> These kinds of studies are quasi-experimental:

...

That's science for you.
Not *good* science; *permissible* science.

Tobacco & lung cancer was the case where observation
studies actually worked. Try the same method with the
claim that use of mobile phones cause brain cancer.

No one have been able to find any connection; the number
of patients with this type of cancer is first of all low
at the outset, and very few people do *not* use mobile
phones. So the comparisions between users and non-user
control groups is not as convenient as with the smoker
vs non-smoker case.

A scientific study would have set up an experiment
where subjects were exposed to various, controlled
doses of radiation to record the resulting effects.
That's obviously impossible to do in practice, for
ethical reasons.

One does not carry put those kinds of tests on human
beings.

And unlike the case of smoking, where effects of
exposure to tobacco can be lab tested with animals,
this might well be one of those cases where lab
studies with animals can not replace tests with
Homo Sapiens. Whereas lunds work the same way in
most or all mammals, details in the mobile phone
case depend critically on the anatomy of the
subject under study. The human head and brain is
unique in the animal world, and no acceptable
proxy is available.

So keep the two separate: Observational studies are
used, but not because they are very good. They aren't.
They are used because the scientific methods are not
permissible.

Rune
 
On Dec 14, 10:28 pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
Of course it's not "unusual" that increased
atmospheric CO2 will cause the ice to melt.

So you attribute all previous changes to changed
levels of CO2?
Of course not.

The only thing I believe is that temperature doesn't
change spontaneously and the only real source
of heat around here is The Sun.

Logically then: Messing with the composition of the
Earth's atmosphere shouldn't be undertaken lightly.
If at all.

Especially if you know from repeatable experiments
what the likely outcome will be.
 
On Dec 14, 11:00 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
It seems like it's all happened
before and the earth survived just fine.
Of course The Earth survived, it's a great big rock.

We could have an all-out nuclear war and the
rock would survive.
 
In sci.math Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
On 15 Des, 10:15, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
In sci.math Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
...> These kinds of studies are quasi-experimental:
...
That's science for you.
Not *good* science; *permissible* science.
.....

Yea, like astrophysics or cosmology, according to your naive arguments. LOL.

--
[Rain as the origin of SLR:]
The slow rise of sea level is caused by rain. Water transfer the soil to see.
The acceleration during the last 50 years is caused by using gas and oil
instead of coal. Gas and oil are changed into water during combustion.
So the slow or the accelerated rise of sea level is not a problem.
-- Szczepan Bialek <sz.bialek@wp.pl>, 28 May 2011 09:50 +0200
 
On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:

...

Last winter I shuffled more snow ...
Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)

...

Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
going on.
For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
make sense?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
 
On 2011-12-15, Rune Allnor <allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
On 15 Des, 10:15, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
In sci.math Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
...> These kinds of studies are quasi-experimental:

...

That's science for you.

Not *good* science; *permissible* science.
The method is perfectly valid.

Tobacco & lung cancer was the case where observation
studies actually worked.
Observation studies "worked" for tobacco and lung cancer, because,
like, tobacco causes lung cancer.

I suspect that you might confusing "working" with "finding a positive
correlation where there isn't one, no matter what".

Sometimes the study has to be honest and conclude that the observations
do not support the hypothesis that there is a link.

Of course, you can never prove the absence of an effect. But you can
put a cap on its upper bound.

Try the same method with the
claim that use of mobile phones cause brain cancer.
No one have been able to find any connection; the number
The same method works perfectly well and allows us to conclude that the link
between mobile phones and cancer, if any, is so weak that it is lost in
statistical noise.

All further work is being done by those who are desperately trying to prove
that there is a link, which is an unscientific vantage point.
 
On Dec 15, 6:37 pm, Kaz Kylheku <k...@kylheku.com> wrote:
The same method works perfectly well and allows us to conclude that the link
between mobile phones and cancer, if any, is so weak that it is lost in
statistical noise.

All further work is being done by those who are desperately trying to prove
that there is a link, which is an unscientific vantage point.
Not to mention they're deliberately blinkering themselves
to all those pesky scientific experiments to find out the
exact frequencies at which electromagnetic radiation
becomes ionizing.

It's a bit like 'arguing' with AGW deniers. The real science
upsets them so they close their eyes whenever it appears.
 
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:

...

Last winter I shuffled more snow ...

Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)

...

Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
going on.

For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
make sense?

Jerry

Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
distracted driving, there's some logic to it.

I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com
 
On 15 Des, 16:52, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
In sci.math Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:> On 15 Des, 10:15, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
In sci.math Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
...> These kinds of studies are quasi-experimental:
...
That's science for you.
Not *good* science; *permissible* science.

....

Yea, like astrophysics
Many aspects of astrophysics can be lab tested.
Not everyrthing, but a lot.

or cosmology,
Certainly.

according to your naive arguments. LOL.
Well, talk with any competent experimenters you
might know. You might be surprised.

Rune
 
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:59:45 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
<allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

On 13 Des, 22:06, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:37:32 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor

all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:52:48 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Assume the tree ring data is good.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...

Bret Cahill

There is too little information to see exactly how
they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.

The main thesis of the propaganda is that the central-eastern
Tibetan Plateau represents the entire planet. You don't see any
problem with that?

Not really: Any claims to *global* warming should apply
to that area as well. If there is one area that fails
to comply with the dominant thesis, there might be others.
Global warming results in regional cooling; I explained this more
than 50 times already; the IPCC explained it four times; S.G.
Callendar explained it in the year 1938; Gilbert Plass explained
it in year 1951; Suess and Revelle explained it in year 1956;
Wally Broecker explained it in 1975.....

Why don't you clowns actually study the subject? Why the fear?

Tree ring proxies on the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau only show
regional climate change; they do not show global climate change.
Web of Knowledge Index shows more than a 200 peer reviewed science
papers, published in science journals, on the subject.

Sheeeish. Good fucking grief.


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca
 
On 15 Des, 18:37, Kaz Kylheku <k...@kylheku.com> wrote:
On 2011-12-15, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

On 15 Des, 10:15, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
In sci.math Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
...> These kinds of studies are quasi-experimental:

...

That's science for you.

Not *good* science; *permissible* science.

The method is perfectly valid.
Not 'perfectly'. It is not an unconditional failure.

Tobacco & lung cancer was the case where observation
studies actually worked.

Observation studies "worked" for tobacco and lung cancer, because,
like, tobacco causes lung cancer.

I suspect that you might confusing "working" with "finding a positive
correlation where there isn't one, no matter what".
No. I mean 'find the parameters for when an actual
interaction takes place'.

Sometimes the study has to be honest and conclude that the observations
do not support the hypothesis that there is a link.
Sure. That's what statistics is for. Establishing
the nature of that link - coincidence, like in the
baby-stork example, or a real cause-effect relation? =
requires experimetation.

Of course, you can never prove the absence of an effect. But you can
put a cap on its upper bound.
According to Karl Popper, that is, on fact all one
can possibly prove:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

When one disturbs a system and see the expected effect,
on can never be sure that it was the cause-effect
relation one have in mind, that was at work. So an
expected outcome does onl indicate thet the system
reacts to the disturbance, it does not say *how*
that reaction comes about.

According to Popper, the only certain conclusions
can be drawn when the expected outcome is *not*
observed> In that case, whatever cause-effect
hypothesis one has in mind, is proved wrong.

Try the same method with the
claim that use of mobile phones cause brain cancer.
No one have been able to find any connection; the number

The same method works perfectly well and allows us to conclude that the link
between mobile phones and cancer, if any, is so weak that it is lost in
statistical noise.
Agreed.

All further work is being done by those who are desperately trying to prove
that there is a link, which is an unscientific vantage point.
No. It is a perfectly understandable vantage point,
as long as the question is not setteled.

To establish what it takes to actually induce brain
cancer through that kind of radiation (indeed, to
answer if it is at all possible), one needs to
to do experiments.

And those exteriment are not permissible.

Rune
 
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:04:27 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Assume the tree ring data is good.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...

LOL! Good catch. The writer of the propaganda seems to believe the
central-eastern Tibetan Plateau is the entire planet, therefore
all of the scientists on the planet are wrong. Amazing. Funny,
too.

True but irrelevant here where we humor his claim that his tree data
correlate well with the medieval warm period and other documented
events.
Of course the Medieval Warm Period had regional cooling, which
tree ring proxies on the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau will not
show. It just gets funnier and funnier.

Here the problem is claiming a /1300 year frequency is signal when he
doesn't even have two periods of sampling time. To be somewhat sure
it wasn't noise would require waiting another 1300 years.
Ah, thank you; of course. Silly me. Of course the Tibetan glacers
have been melting anomalously for nearly 30 years, but that
doesn't seem to worry the hysterical alarmist deniers any.

"Temperatures are rising four times faster than elsewhere in
China, and the Tibetan glaciers are retreating at a higher speed
than in any other part of the world.

"In the short term, this will cause lakes to expand and bring
floods and mudflows.

"In the long run, the glaciers are vital lifelines for Asian
rivers, including the Indus and the Ganges. Once they vanish,
water supplies in those regions will be in peril."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g1eE4Xw3njaW1MKpJRYOch4hOdLQ

That doesn't get it when the ocean is rising 2 in every 13 years.

--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca
 
On 15 Des, 18:46, fungus <openglMYSO...@artlum.com> wrote:

It's a bit like 'arguing' with AGW deniers. The real science
upsets them so they close their eyes whenever it appears.
Right..., we already have agreed that climate 'research'
and science in general don't see eye to eye. There might
be very specific reasons why you find it hard or
impossible to argue with competent scientists.

Meeting opposing philosophies is not an uncommon situation
for a scientist to be in, so there are guidelines to
identify certain psychological and rethorical traps
that on might fall into; identifiers of *pseudoscience*:

http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

That page is written with an inclination to meet
differing views based on religion, so some adaptions
need to be made for it to fit this debate.

Still, let's take the general ideas, expressed as
eight specific items a-h, modify them slightly
away from discussing religion, and see how they fit the
climate 'research' debate:

"Scientific theories are characterized by such things as"

Which means that views, beliefs or theories that *don't*
match the items listed below, are un-scientific.

"(a) being based on empirical observation rather than
the authority of some sacred text;"

'Sacred text' don't match in this case but 'authority'
certainly does. It would be interesting to see how the
debate would *without* the involvement of the UN, IPCC
and various governments and lobbyists. Such heavy
political involvment is virtually unique, what supposed-
to-be-scientic debates, are concerned. We *already*
have agreements in place to impose heavy economical
restrictions on CO2 etc. Scientists are virtually
locked, it would be carreer suicide to oppose your
own government's politics.

"(b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena;"

'Range' being the operative word. The climate debate
focuses on CO2 to the exclusion of everything else;
on the post 1850 era, at the expense of all other
times.

"(c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way,
usually involving testing specific predictions
deduced from the theory;"

This fails miserably. There are lab tests to study
individual factors, although one tend to focus on
CO2 at the expense of, say, H2O (ref item b above).
And no one have been able to test all relevant factors
at once, to check for interaction effects that don't
show up in single-factor investigations. And of course,
lab tests only address the questions researchers are
aware of. They will not adrres that factor no one
thought about. Disastrous, if such factors exists
in the system.

"(d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical
tests or with the discovery of new facts;"

Well, no emoprircal test have been made to confirm the
effects of CO2 build-up on the *total* system. So no
confirming experiments are available. And of course,
data like those referenced in the seed post of
this thread attract ridicule from the 'non-deniers',
not professional interest. The comment about 'hidden',
surprising factors under item c above, applies here
as well.

"(e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone
regardless of personal religious or metaphysical
beliefs;"

Mann & al have been severely criticised as others have
been unable to reproduce their 'hockey stick' curve.
It is a bad sign that one needs to know the outcome
prior to analysis, to be able to produce a confirming
result...

"(f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators
to new knowledge and understanding of the
interrelatedness of the natural world rather than
being static and stagnant leading to no research
or development of a better understanding of anything
in the natural world;"

Again, the IPCC side claims to know the answer to the
question, showing few if any signs of willingness to
approach the data with sufficient leeway to modify
their views. Might be bad science, might be political
pressure. The result is a fixed argument.

"(g) being approached with skepticism rather than
gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces
or supernatural powers, and "

'Scepticism rather than gullibility' are, of course, the
operative words here. I note that the former PM of
Norway (ref item a, 'authority', above), Brundtland, went
on public record stating that "it is immoral to question
the standpoints of IPCC." Such statements leave little
room for scepticism.

"(h) being fallible and put forth tentatively rather
than being put forth as infallible or inerrant."

This should not be necessary to comment on, but the
comment about former PM, Brundtland, under item g
above, applies here as well. There are no identifiable
signs of tentativeness or conditionals, in the
'argumnetation' originating from the IPCC side
of the debate.

So the IPCC side fails eight out of eight listed
identifiers of pseudo science. Impressive, really.

Food for thought...?

Rune
 
"Eric Jacobsen" <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:4eea422e.1210451381@www.eternal-september.org...
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:

...

Last winter I shuffled more snow ...

Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)

...

Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
going on.

For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
make sense?

Jerry


Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
distracted driving, there's some logic to it.

I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com
Regardless of if you believe that the AGW theory is valid or not, the more
important question is what should society do regarding energy.

1) I think we all agree there are many good reasons to seek alternative form
of energy besides fossil fuel even if AGW is not one of them (someone
already said that and I think everyone agrees).
We should invest in research to develop these Alternative fuel research
YES

2) I think we all agree it is not a good idea to waste energy in any form
so we should invest in conservation . YES

3) The problems start when the AGW folks want to levy a CARBON TAX. Who
should get that money and what should it be used for? If you want to use it
for 1 and 2 above, I might even agree to that. CARBON TAX DEPENDS

4) More problems start when the AGW folks want us all to pony up more money
to pay for carbon sequestration equipment for coal plants. This would be a
total waste of money time and effort. CARBON SEQUESTRATION NO!


My point is, the discussion about AGW is almost irrelevant.

The real discussion should be about what actions do you want society to take
regarding an energy policy.

Mark
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top