... statistical tests for global warming fails to find ..... anthropogenic forcing

Jan 4, 2013 Full story: Free Republic 96

From the journal Earth System Dynamics billed as 'An Interactive Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union' comes this paper which suggests that the posited AGW forcing effects simply isn't statistically significant in the observations, but other natural forcings are.

Full Story

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#42 Feb 8, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
This is what you get when economists write science papers- total ignorance of the science, along with the totally misapplied statistics.
You misunderstand how science works. The fact that a paper gets published (in an obscure journal, after two previous rejections) does not mean it's true.
It means that now people who really know about the physics of AGW and statistics will look at the paper, and publish a response.
The paper has been knocking about the internet for a year or so, and various people have pointed out holes (misapplied statistics and total ignorance of the physical basis of AGW), so expect these criticisms to be formalised in the response in the literature.
For deniers of course, it says what they want to believe, so it must be true.
Comment on "Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming" by Beenstock et al.(2012) Some fallacies in econometric modelling of climate change

D. F. Hendry and F. Pretis
Department of Economics, and Institute for Economic Modelling, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Abstract. We demonstrate major flaws in the statistical analysis of Beenstock et al.(2012), discrediting their initial claims as to the different degrees of integrability of CO2 and temperature.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/219...
PHD

Overton, TX

#43 Feb 9, 2013
Another good day seeing the wallop10 getting walloped again and again.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#44 Feb 9, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny when you consider all you have done is cut and paste with little additional thought added. No time taken to check what your posting for even duplication let alone for accuracy.
TS: Yeah, I'm supposed to "add" scientific value to NASA official climate website,

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

While you claim it is really a left wing site.
Before that, that NASA claimed AGW was a hoax.
After that, that you could find ANOTHER official NASA website that said it didn't believe in AGW.

But of course, you couldn't so, you resorted to calling it a left wing website.

Such a liar.
PHD

Overton, TX

#45 Feb 10, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
TS: Yeah, I'm supposed to "add" scientific value to NASA official climate website,
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
While you claim it is really a left wing site.
Before that, that NASA claimed AGW was a hoax.
After that, that you could find ANOTHER official NASA website that said it didn't believe in AGW.
But of course, you couldn't so, you resorted to calling it a left wing website.
Such a liar.
You couldn't add scientific value to any known source out there. Now on your behalf you do add value to scientific science fiction useless babble. Another good day seeing the wallop10 getting walloped again and again.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#46 Feb 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>

The paper has been knocking about the internet for a year or so, and various people have pointed out holes (misapplied statistics and total ignorance of the physical basis of AGW), so expect these criticisms to be formalised in the response in the literature.
For deniers of course, it says what they want to believe, so it must be true.
The paper is pure fiction:

If you look at the CO2 forcing above it looks pretty linear, but how about the total radiative forcing, because, our new hero's are claiming that
.......greenhouse gas forcing, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated and AGW is refuted. Although we reject AGW, we find that greenhouse gas forcings have a temporary effect on global temperature. Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predicitons of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.
Hmm, that looks pretty linear too (the color you can't see in the legend is for CH4). So we have the result that the radiative forcing since 1979, has been linear. What about before 1979? Well, let's go to the IPCC WGI. Calculation of radiative forcing requires calculations, that means models. The figure below is from Nozawa et al., 2005; and Takemura et al., 2005. Different GCMs, get different values, but the general trends are as shown. Even if you simply plug into simple algebraic equations to calculate the radiative forcings, those equations came from GCMs, so in a real sense Beenstock and Reingewertz are unwittingly engaging in a circle jerk, but let the magnomious Rabett Labs skip over this,
bv

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/03/idiots-del...
PHD

Overton, TX

#47 Feb 12, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
The paper is pure fiction:
If you look at the CO2 forcing above it looks pretty linear, but how about the total radiative forcing, because, our new hero's are claiming that
.......greenhouse gas forcing, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated and AGW is refuted. Although we reject AGW, we find that greenhouse gas forcings have a temporary effect on global temperature. Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predicitons of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.
Hmm, that looks pretty linear too (the color you can't see in the legend is for CH4). So we have the result that the radiative forcing since 1979, has been linear. What about before 1979? Well, let's go to the IPCC WGI. Calculation of radiative forcing requires calculations, that means models. The figure below is from Nozawa et al., 2005; and Takemura et al., 2005. Different GCMs, get different values, but the general trends are as shown. Even if you simply plug into simple algebraic equations to calculate the radiative forcings, those equations came from GCMs, so in a real sense Beenstock and Reingewertz are unwittingly engaging in a circle jerk, but let the magnomious Rabett Labs skip over this,
bv
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/03/idiots-del...
More BS from the walloped commander TROLL!!

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#48 Feb 12, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
TS: Yeah, I'm supposed to "add" scientific value to NASA official climate website,
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
While you claim it is really a left wing site.
Before that, that NASA claimed AGW was a hoax.
After that, that you could find ANOTHER official NASA website that said it didn't believe in AGW.
But of course, you couldn't so, you resorted to calling it a left wing website.
Such a liar.
Actually, I said the site is under the control of Dr Hansen and his views. As for believing in AGW, notice that those sites talk about climate change but do not use the "AGW". That is because AGW has been disproven as a theory. Keep in mind Dr Mann has had with his Hockey Stick and then add a few thousand studies that could be submitted in a court of law as evidence. You would have all you need to sue NASA and yes you can sue the US Government in certain situations. There are lawyers who specialize in such cases who would love to retire to a nice private island somewhere warm.

Also looked at your site and notice that they are spinning things. For example the one graph tried to claim that CO2 levels are the highest that they have ever been on earth and yet during Carmbrian period the CO2 levels were higher. Something I have used to soundly beat people like you with in the past. Another thing I have noticed was the the first reference is the IPCC AR4. A source that has been proven and documented as repleat with errors.

You seem to think that your NASA site should be an argument ender when it is far from it. Given NASA's track record and the easily found errors it is anything but. What is sad is that you seem to have little else than a half dozen sources out of the thousands if not millions available to you. No actual studies, or anything other than a few web sites.

http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/...
PHD

Overton, TX

#49 Feb 12, 2013
so the wallop10 AKA walloped again and again gets walloped again and again!!! Another great day today!!

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#50 Feb 12, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I said the site is under the control of Dr Hansen and his views
You said you could find OTHER official NASA websites that said global warming was a hoax. Then you gave up and told me NASA was left wing.

LOL!
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
As for believing in AGW, notice that those sites talk about climate change but do not use the "AGW". That is because AGW has been disproven as a theory.
All the reputable world renown science sites talk about climate change caused by AGW.

LOL!
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep in mind Dr Mann has had with his Hockey Stick and then add a few thousand studies that could be submitted in a court of law as evidence.
Keep in mind, the US Congress asked the NAS to validate the hockey stick and they came back with a resounding yes.

But right wingers like you continue to lie about it. Unlike you, I can give a link.

"** The NAS report (2006) concluded that Mann's hockey stick (increase in long term temperature) was essentially correct."

it found that the last decades were the WARMEST since the last four hundred years with high statistical certainty**; and it was also likely higher during the last 1100 years of proxies studies (but with less statistical certainty being possible)

At the link is a graph that shows the results of the other independent studies which ALL show the high climb in temperatures during the last decades.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php...
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
You would have all you need to sue NASA and yes you can sue the US Government in certain situations. There are lawyers who specialize in such cases who would love to retire to a nice private island somewhere warm.
too looney to take seriously.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Also looked at your site and notice that they are spinning things. For example the one graph tried to claim that CO2 levels are the highest that they have ever been on earth and yet during Carmbrian period the CO2 levels were higher. Something I have used to soundly beat people like you with in the past. Another thing I have noticed was the the first reference is the IPCC AR4. A source that has been proven and documented as repleat with errors.
Humans civilization now depends on agriculture and across the globe.
The IPCC AR4 is a compilation of known scientific journal. Any mistakes were very minor.

You are full of MAJOR mistakes.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

You seem to think that your NASA site should be an argument ender when it is far from it. Given NASA's track record and the easily found errors it is anything but.
You say your heroes Rush Limbaugh and FOX are better at science, yes.
But then... that's you...
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
What is sad is that you seem to have little else than a half dozen sources out of the thousands if not millions available to you. No actual studies, or anything other than a few web sites.
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/...
In 2006, Gray also predicted a cooling trend by 2009-2010.

Hasn't happened. 2010-2012 were still among the top 10 hottest years since 1880...
PHD

Overton, TX

#51 Feb 13, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
You said you could find OTHER official NASA websites that said global warming was a hoax. Then you gave up and told me NASA was left wing.
LOL!
<quoted text>
All the reputable world renown science sites talk about climate change caused by AGW.
LOL!
<quoted text>
Keep in mind, the US Congress asked the NAS to validate the hockey stick and they came back with a resounding yes.
But right wingers like you continue to lie about it. Unlike you, I can give a link.
"** The NAS report (2006) concluded that Mann's hockey stick (increase in long term temperature) was essentially correct."
it found that the last decades were the WARMEST since the last four hundred years with high statistical certainty**; and it was also likely higher during the last 1100 years of proxies studies (but with less statistical certainty being possible)
At the link is a graph that shows the results of the other independent studies which ALL show the high climb in temperatures during the last decades.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php...
<quoted text>
too looney to take seriously.
<quoted text>
Humans civilization now depends on agriculture and across the globe.
The IPCC AR4 is a compilation of known scientific journal. Any mistakes were very minor.
You are full of MAJOR mistakes.
<quoted text>
You say your heroes Rush Limbaugh and FOX are better at science, yes.
But then... that's you...
<quoted text>
In 2006, Gray also predicted a cooling trend by 2009-2010.
Hasn't happened. 2010-2012 were still among the top 10 hottest years since 1880...
More BS from the commander TROLL.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#52 Feb 13, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
You said you could find OTHER official NASA websites that said global warming was a hoax. Then you gave up and told me NASA was left wing.
LOL!
<quoted text>
All the reputable world renown science sites talk about climate change caused by AGW.
LOL!
<quoted text>
Keep in mind, the US Congress asked the NAS to validate the hockey stick and they came back with a resounding yes.
But right wingers like you continue to lie about it. Unlike you, I can give a link.
"** The NAS report (2006) concluded that Mann's hockey stick (increase in long term temperature) was essentially correct."
it found that the last decades were the WARMEST since the last four hundred years with high statistical certainty**; and it was also likely higher during the last 1100 years of proxies studies (but with less statistical certainty being possible)
At the link is a graph that shows the results of the other independent studies which ALL show the high climb in temperatures during the last decades.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php...
<quoted text>
too looney to take seriously.
<quoted text>
Humans civilization now depends on agriculture and across the globe.
The IPCC AR4 is a compilation of known scientific journal. Any mistakes were very minor.
You are full of MAJOR mistakes.
<quoted text>
You say your heroes Rush Limbaugh and FOX are better at science, yes.
But then... that's you...
<quoted text>
In 2006, Gray also predicted a cooling trend by 2009-2010.
Hasn't happened. 2010-2012 were still among the top 10 hottest years since 1880...
No, what I have told you was NASA was wrong and pandering to keep it's budget. Notice last night State of the Union didn't involve anything in NASA's baliwick. No talk about space exploration, developing new technologies, or anything else. Using already developed tech was mentioned but nothing new. Manufactoring jobs which are often union jobs, construction, and yes green energy.

You also talk about "reputable" science sites talking about AGW. More like what you consider "reputable" and not what are considered "reputable" in general. I could make the same claim about Junkscience.com . That they are a reputable site. And I sure I could get Rush Limbaugh to agree. I doubt you or many others would agree that it is. So why should anyone consider those two sites to be reputable when they have been documented to be anything but. Why should anyone consider Wikipedia to be so when so much documentation has been produced and so many examples have been found that it has not.

As for the NAS validating the Hockey Stick. Who has validated the NAS. Meanwhile many who you would whine about being right wing has discovered that the NAS has a history of bending whatever way the political winds blow. If they are blowing toward ice age then the NAS produces proof that it is so, if the winds are blowing toward AGW then the NAS says it is so. Meanwhile someone produced an experiment where they fed random numbers into the Hockey Stick Model and it produced a similar result.

As for the sources of the IPCC AR4, those were well documented and no it was not a compilation of known scientific journals but those journals that support the results they wanted. Not everything that was included was even a journal. Many sources were nothing more than magazine articles misquoting or sometimes attributing words to people who had not said that. I also know you want to claim that NASA said that 2012 was the hottest year on record except NASA was wrong again. So it looks like Dr Grey was right and NASA screwed up again.

As for the comment about agriculture, your right. The world has always depended on agriculture since the start of civilization. Predicting weather was alway valuable and they have been collecting data for centuries.

http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/...

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/15/scien...

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#53 Feb 13, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>More BS from the commander TROLL.
He is reaching.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#54 Feb 13, 2013
LOL. ph'd to tina for three years, at least:... "a box of rocks."
PHD

Overton, TX

#55 Feb 13, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
LOL. ph'd to tina for three years, at least:... "a box of rocks."
There you have it folks the spaced out spacedoutblues got its crystal ball out and made another prediction.
PHD

Overton, TX

#56 Feb 13, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
He is reaching.
It can reach to the far planets and will argue to its death scientific science fiction. Could be the head injury from being walloped again and again.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#57 Feb 13, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
LOL. ph'd to tina for three years, at least:... "a box of rocks."
Worth a repeat, LOL.
PHD

Overton, TX

#58 Feb 13, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Worth a repeat, LOL.
Ok here you have it, spaced out spacedoutblues hit the bottle again.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#59 Feb 13, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what I have told you was NASA was wrong and pandering to keep it's budget.
Er, let's recap.

#1 You told me EVERY science organization said AGW was now a hoax.
I showed you ALL of the world renown science organizations and science media said the opposite.

#2 When I showed you NASA said AGW was a threat.
You told me there were "other NASA sites" that said it was a hoax.

#3 When I said prove it, you gave me a Roy Spencer article saying he worked for NASA so that was good enough.

I showed you he was a satellite guy who used to work for NASA AND his recent article was so full of errors, the editor who published his report resigned to show his embarassment.

There was NO official NASA websites you could produce, although you kept referring to the Spencer article at least another 3-4 times.

#4 Then you started calling NASA a left wing site.

#5 Now, you are starting to say they want funding. H-e-l-l-o, they were saying the same thing when Bush was President and the Republicans controlled both houses.

If you had ANY iq, you would also know one of NASA's mission directorates is to study the Earth's and other planets climate. They'd need climatologists whether there was global warming or not.

And they are on fixed incomes.

Guess you're showing that proud Rush Limbaugh Dittohead attitude.
Most intelligent people would be ashamed to show their face with your past record.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
I could make the same claim about Junkscience.com . That they are a reputable site.
They are a right wing junk website.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
And I sure I could get Rush Limbaugh to agree.
Hey, FINALLY we both agree on something. Rush Limbaugh WOULD like Junkscience.com .
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
As for the NAS validating the Hockey Stick. Who has validated the NAS.
Always embarassing yourself with your lack of knowledge. Why Rush doesn't talk about them????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy...
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

Meanwhile many who you would whine about being right wing has discovered that the NAS has a history of bending whatever way the political winds blow.If they are blowing toward ice age then the NAS produces proof that it is so, if the winds are blowing toward AGW then the NAS says it is so.
It wasn't the NAS the published this. And the paper was speculation only and never the consensus of ANY scientific organization.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Meanwhile someone produced an experiment where they fed random numbers into the Hockey Stick Model and it produced a similar result.
Going for the BIG lies huh?
Guess that's all little right wing ideologues have.

Those who put out pure trash, you have to worry what THEIR character is...

You are a pathetic, filthy liar.
PHD

Overton, TX

#60 Feb 14, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Er, let's recap.
#1 You told me EVERY science organization said AGW was now a hoax.
I showed you ALL of the world renown science organizations and science media said the opposite.
#2 When I showed you NASA said AGW was a threat.
You told me there were "other NASA sites" that said it was a hoax.
#3 When I said prove it, you gave me a Roy Spencer article saying he worked for NASA so that was good enough.
I showed you he was a satellite guy who used to work for NASA AND his recent article was so full of errors, the editor who published his report resigned to show his embarassment.
There was NO official NASA websites you could produce, although you kept referring to the Spencer article at least another 3-4 times.
#4 Then you started calling NASA a left wing site.
#5 Now, you are starting to say they want funding. H-e-l-l-o, they were saying the same thing when Bush was President and the Republicans controlled both houses.
If you had ANY iq, you would also know one of NASA's mission directorates is to study the Earth's and other planets climate. They'd need climatologists whether there was global warming or not.
And they are on fixed incomes.
Guess you're showing that proud Rush Limbaugh Dittohead attitude.
Most intelligent people would be ashamed to show their face with your past record.
<quoted text>
They are a right wing junk website.
<quoted text>
Hey, FINALLY we both agree on something. Rush Limbaugh WOULD like Junkscience.com .
<quoted text>
Always embarassing yourself with your lack of knowledge. Why Rush doesn't talk about them????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy...
<quoted text>
It wasn't the NAS the published this. And the paper was speculation only and never the consensus of ANY scientific organization.
<quoted text>
Going for the BIG lies huh?
Guess that's all little right wing ideologues have.
Those who put out pure trash, you have to worry what THEIR character is...
You are a pathetic, filthy liar.
More scientific science fiction and hate from the walloped again and again.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#61 Feb 14, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Er, let's recap.
#1 You told me EVERY science organization said AGW was now a hoax.
I showed you ALL of the world renown science organizations and science media said the opposite.
#2 When I showed you NASA said AGW was a threat.
You told me there were "other NASA sites" that said it was a hoax.
#3 When I said prove it, you gave me a Roy Spencer article saying he worked for NASA so that was good enough.
I showed you he was a satellite guy who used to work for NASA AND his recent article was so full of errors, the editor who published his report resigned to show his embarassment.
There was NO official NASA websites you could produce, although you kept referring to the Spencer article at least another 3-4 times.
#4 Then you started calling NASA a left wing site.
#5 Now, you are starting to say they want funding. H-e-l-l-o, they were saying the same thing when Bush was President and the Republicans controlled both houses.
If you had ANY iq, you would also know one of NASA's mission directorates is to study the Earth's and other planets climate. They'd need climatologists whether there was global warming or not.
And they are on fixed incomes.
Guess you're showing that proud Rush Limbaugh Dittohead attitude.
Most intelligent people would be ashamed to show their face with your past record.
<quoted text>
They are a right wing junk website.
<quoted text>
Hey, FINALLY we both agree on something. Rush Limbaugh WOULD like Junkscience.com .
<quoted text>
Always embarassing yourself with your lack of knowledge. Why Rush doesn't talk about them????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy...
<quoted text>
It wasn't the NAS the published this. And the paper was speculation only and never the consensus of ANY scientific organization.
<quoted text>
Going for the BIG lies huh?
Guess that's all little right wing ideologues have.
Those who put out pure trash, you have to worry what THEIR character is...
You are a pathetic, filthy liar.
1. World renown or just the government sponsered one. Every organization you listed is government funded and several were nothing more than a way to funnel money back into campaign coffers.

2. I also pointed out who was in charge of those NASA sites and how some of them had errors. With Dr Hansen in charge I could point out that they are less than unbiased.

3-4. Care to point out where I said that. What I did say is NASA is saying what they need to say to keep from having their budget cut.

5. Congress is who controls the purse strings, not the president. So, if you want more you have to make nice to the Senators and Congressmen. After all, it has to pass on both sides before the president gets a crack at it and all he can do is Veto.

I glad you posted all that. Because it helps prove that this is all about politics. You talk about Roy Spencer being wrong and seem to ignore that NASA has been caught making mistakes. Expensive mistakes that have lost very expensive space craft. In many cases because they forgot to double check their work like they did with the Hubble Telescope.

After all, if NASA can misidentify the tallest mountain on earth and loose a few satellites then what makes you think they are perfect on this subject..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asi...

http://www.wired.com/science/space/multimedia...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mathematics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Rajnath Singh said the youth should not undermi... Jan 20 Simran Kaur 1
Did Romney lose because he wasna t likable enou... (Nov '13) Jan 18 gafriv 22
Golf pairings solution required (Jan '07) Jan 17 Lincoln 141
For Long-Term Care's Future, 2 Dates Loom Dec '14 Jay bhatt 2
Pittsburgh researchers explain complex genetics... Dec '14 Vaccines Maim Kill 8
What The 2014 Midterm Election Results Mean For... Nov '14 Andarz Abedini 3
What's missing from the labour market: data Nov '14 usary 1
More from around the web