BethesdaWX Posted December 29, 2011 Author Share Posted December 29, 2011 nope. you presented it as evidence for a claim you were making in YOUR OWN WORDS. see the large red type below: in fact, you said the study "completely address[ed]" the UAH dataset. now you are saying you never read it. if that is so, how could you make the assertion you made in the first post--that it "completely address[ed]" it? you never read it and somehow it's the end-all Land be-all answer to this question. again, this is the kind of thread which should not be allowed in a forum devoted to serious Ldiscussion of scientific issues. CHRISTY ET AL 2011 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD, NOR DOES THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? You need to read more. My answer to everything was in my post you quoted. I told you why I mentioned error bars. This thread isn't about error bars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 CHRISTY ET AL 2011 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD, NOR DOES THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? You need to read more. My answer to everything was in my post you quoted. I told you why I mentioned error bars. This thread isn't about error bars. BB - you have simply been caught telling a lie on this forum. You started this thread with unsupported assertions and when questioned about them you have weaseled, lied, denied, and played semantic games trying dodge responsibility for your own words. A mature individual would admit the mistake, apologize to the gentle readers, and move on. Instead, your actions are almost a textbook example of blog trolling. So the question becomes - why should any reader who has followed this thread give any of your posts even a nanogram of credibility after your behavior? Credibility is much like trust - one has to earn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 29, 2011 Author Share Posted December 29, 2011 BB - you have simply been caught telling a lie on this forum. You started this thread with unsupported assertions and when questioned about them you have weaseled, lied, denied, and played semantic games trying dodge responsibility for your own words. You are making no sense, just stop. What did I lie about? Lets hear it. A mature individual would admit the mistake, apologize to the gentle readers, and move on. Instead, your actions are almost a textbook example of blog trolling. What mistake? So the question becomes - why should any reader who has followed this thread give any of your posts even a nanogram of credibility after your behavior? Credibility is much like trust - one has to earn it. You think you can talk? Stop posting in my thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Beth If you were telling the truth about Christy et al 2011 direct us to the link, otherwise admit you made it up. I for one would like to read the paper since I recently had an article published in a regional magazine where I specifically noted Spence's problems in getting peer reviewed work published. If I was in error I'd like to be able to apologize to my readership and make whatever changes are called for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 Beth If you were telling the truth about Christy et al 2011 direct us to the link, otherwise admit you made it up. Yeah I suppose Roy Spencer made it up too haha! He referenced in the blog post I linked. And either way it's not relevant to this thread! Why are you asking me to search for irrelevant paper... for you? I for one would like to read the paper since I recently had an article published in a regional magazine where I specifically noted Spence's problems in getting peer reviewed work published. If I was in error I'd like to be able to apologize to my readership and make whatever changes are called for. Why don't you just reference your magazine in a new thread? Roy Spencer's climate change papers are not in the same subgroup as the UAH verification studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Yeah I suppose Roy Spencer made it up too haha! He referenced in the blog post I linked. And either way it's not relevant to this thread! Why are you asking me to search for irrelevant paper... for you? Why don't you just reference your magazine in a new thread? Roy Spencer's climate change papers are not in the same subgroup as the UAH verification studies. Because you stated that it existed and no one else can find it. My article has no impact on this thread, however if the information you wrote is correct it invalidates a point made in that article, and I would feel obligated to print a retraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 Because you stated that it existed and no one else can find it. My article has no impact on this thread, however if the information you wrote is correct it invalidates a point made in that article, and I would feel obligated to print a retraction. Roy Spencer references it on his blog, along with many others: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/addressing-criticisms-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-at-13-century/ Thats all I know, I haven't read it. Thats not why I mentioned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 You are making no sense, just stop. What did I lie about? Lets hear it. You lied when you said there is new peer-reviewed literature from Spencer and Christy. And you continue to repeat that lie on this and other threads in this forum despite being informed that the reality is there are NO recent peer-reviewed papers from Spencer & Christy. I believe that you only made the statement in the first place as a weak appeal to authority - which, BTW, is a logical fallacy. What mistake? Not having the integrity to tell the truth from the beginning, or the maturity to admit and correct your mistakes. You think you can talk? Stop posting in my thread. Your thread?! Do you really think that starting a thread gives you free rein to post lies and not be questioned? That you, , and you alone, determine what reality is? What an amusingly child-like attitude you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 Your thread?! Do you really think that starting a thread gives you free rein to post lies and not be questioned? That you, , and you alone, determine what reality is? What an amusingly child-like attitude you have. Dude your argument is nothing but a load of derranged BS, I linked you Spencer's reference to Christy et al 2011. Roy Spencer must love stabbing his colleagues in the back, inventing papers and putting their name on it. Shame on him! I haven't read it, it isn't relavent to this thread, thats not why I mentioned it...but for whatever reason you're hell bent to prove that I invented it, which is complete and utter BS... You're done here. Link to Spencer's Reference: http://www.drroyspen...-at-13-century/ We know the data are not perfect (no data are), but we have documented the relatively small error bounds of the reported trends using internal and external evidence (Christy et al. 2011.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Dude your argument is nothing but a load of derranged BS, I linked you Spencer's reference to Christy et al 2011. Roy Spencer must love stabbing his colleagues in the back, inventing papers and putting their name on it. Shame on him! I haven't read it, it isn't relavent to this thread, thats not why I mentioned it...but for whatever reason you're hell bent to prove that I invented it, which is complete and utter BS... You're done here. Link to Spencer's Reference: http://www.drroyspen...-at-13-century/ Dr Spencer didn't make any claim that there is "New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer" - only you did. So your trying to shift the blame from you to him is . . well . . .cowardly sums it up pretty well. The more crap and lies you post, the clearer it becomes why you were banned from this forum in the past. Let's hope the moderators are paying attention this time. You add no value to the threads here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 Dr Spencer didn't make any claim that there is "New peer reviewed literature by John Christy and Roy Spencer" - only you did. So your trying to shift the blame from you to him is . . well . . .cowardly sums it up pretty well. The more crap and lies you post, the clearer it becomes why you were banned from this forum in the past. Let's hope the moderators are paying attention this time. You add no value to the threads here. Where did I say Spencer said that? Show me. I'm the one that said that, because obviously christy et al 2011 is 'recent', it was published this year. UAH error bars are UAH error bars. Spencer said this in the link I posted: We know the data are not perfect (no data are), but we have documented the relatively small error bounds of the reported trends using internal and external evidence (Christy et al. 2011.) Why are you making this crap up? None of your accusations against me are true...it's all bs. What are you even arguing? Are you on something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Where did I say Spencer said that? Show me. I'm the one that said that, because obviously christy et al 2011 is 'recent', it was published this year. UAH error bars are UAH error bars. Spencer said this in the link I posted: [/b][/i] Why are you making this crap up? None of your accusations against me are true...it's all bs. What are you even arguing? Are you on something? Becky, You can tell all the lies you want - but if you think you are fooling anyone . . . then you're only fooling yourself. The BS you post doesn't make you look intelligent, or scientific - it just makes it obvious that you're just another pathological liar in the climate denial fringe. And not even a very clever one. Just pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 31, 2011 Author Share Posted December 31, 2011 Becky, You can tell all the lies you want - but if you think you are fooling anyone . . . then you're only fooling yourself. The BS you post doesn't make you look intelligent, or scientific - it just makes it obvious that you're just another pathological liar in the climate denial fringe. And not even a very clever one. Just pathetic. Someone help this guy, please. Felipe, Your false, unsubstantiated claims now have me feeling utter sympathy for you, you have yet to tell me what I am supposedly lying about. Did I invent Christy et al 2011? Does Roy Spencer invent papers to impress people on his blog? Or what? What are you accusing me of? Talk. This is getting ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Someone help this guy, please. Felipe, Your false, unsubstantiated claims now have me feeling utter sympathy for you, you have yet to tell me what I am supposedly lying about. Did I invent Christy et al 2011? Does Roy Spencer invent papers to impress people on his blog? Or what? What are you accusing me of? Talk. This is getting ridiculous. "Our comparison of ‘raw’ modeled and observed trends (Figure 6F) does not involve removal of ENSO and volcanic effects from observations alone, and is not restricted to a single period of record. We find that for the range of TLT trends considered here, there is no trend length at which the multi-model average trend, bf, is more than 1.73 times larger than bo, the average observed TLT trend (see Figure 6F). Across the 10-to 32-year range of trend lengths, the average ratio of bf /bo is 1.35 for RSS v3.2, 1.46 for RSS v3.3, and 1.55 for UAH." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 So what changes were made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 "Our comparison of ‘raw’ modeled and observed trends (Figure 6F) does not involve removal of ENSO and volcanic effects from observations alone, and is not restricted to a single period of record. We find that for the range of TLT trends considered here, there is no trend length at which the multi-model average trend, bf, is more than 1.73 times larger than bo, the average observed TLT trend (see Figure 6F). Across the 10-to 32-year range of trend lengths, the average ratio of bf /bo is 1.35 for RSS v3.2, 1.46 for RSS v3.3, and 1.55 for UAH." Point being? How does this relate to my post you quoted? As is stated, there are many aspects to error bars against a base statistical error determiniation incorporates meteorological and instrumental age into the calibration process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Point being? How does this relate to my post you quoted? As is stated, there are many aspects to error bars against a base statistical error determiniation incorporates meteorological and instrumental age into the calibration process. "One version of the trick is used in IPCC TAR. In this version, Mann replaced post-1960 values of the Briffa reconstruction with instrumental values, then did a smooth, then truncated the Briffa reconstruction back to 1960. Post-1960 instrumental values affected the smooth by the arithmetic of the smoothing filter." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 So what changes were made? It hasn't been released yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 "One version of the trick is used in IPCC TAR. In this version, Mann replaced post-1960 values of the Briffa reconstruction with instrumental values, then did a smooth, then truncated the Briffa reconstruction back to 1960. Post-1960 instrumental values affected the smooth by the arithmetic of the smoothing filter." Stop spamming my thread with irrelavent crap. What does the hockeystick have to do with this thread? Not funny. Also, linking your sources is important if you want to be a good troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 It hasn't been released yet. "Our comparison of ‘raw’ modeled and observed trends (Figure 6F) does not involve removal of ENSO and volcanic effects from observations alone, and is not restricted to a single period of record. We find that for the range of TLT trends considered here, there is no trend length at which the multi-model average trend, bf, is more than 1.73 times larger than bo, the average observed TLT trend (see Figure 6F). Across the 10-to 32-year range of trend lengths, the average ratio of bf /bo is 1.35 for RSS v3.2, 1.46 for RSS v3.3, and 1.55 for UAH." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 "Our comparison of ‘raw’ modeled and observed trends (Figure 6F) does not involve removal of ENSO and volcanic effects from observations alone, and is not restricted to a single period of record. We find that for the range of TLT trends considered here, there is no trend length at which the multi-model average trend, bf, is more than 1.73 times larger than bo, the average observed TLT trend (see Figure 6F). Across the 10-to 32-year range of trend lengths, the average ratio of bf /bo is 1.35 for RSS v3.2, 1.46 for RSS v3.3, and 1.55 for UAH." This is 100% unrelated crap from god knows where. It'd be a wise move on your part to knock off the nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 This is 100% unrelated crap from god knows where. It'd be a wise move on your part to knock off the nonsense. Don't Explain the Joke It seems jokes are something The Joker doesn't like to kill. Get it? It's because he's a criminal with a comedy theme! "Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind." — E. B. White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Your joke doesn't apply in the least because I posted references to the topic in this thread. So, I'll say again, stop spamming my thread with irrelavent crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 This thread is an alarmist disaster. Come on. "So, I'll say again, stop spamming my thread with irrelavent crap " Do you get the joke now, do I have to explain it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 "So, I'll say again, stop spamming my thread with irrelavent crap " So Roy Spencer invented a paper and put his colleague's name on it? Shame on him, he should be fired pronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 "So, I'll say again, stop spamming my thread with irrelavent crap " It is an alarmist disaster, and my post was directly relavent to earlier posts in the thread debunking your ridiculous claims about an arctic methane spike induced by CAGW. Your joke isn't relavent at all to this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 It is an alarmist disaster, and my post was directly relavent to earlier posts in the thread debunking your ridiculous claims about an arctic methane spike induced by CAGW. Your joke isn't relavent at all to this thread. Wow you are actually putting my quote of you as representing me. Nice move. "I did not say this he did.". Nice. Google "Geomagnetic Solar Flux" with the quotes and tell us what it means please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Wow you are actually putting my quote of you as representing me. Nice move. "I did not say this he did.". Nice. Google "Geomagnetic Solar Flux" and tell us what it means please. You did say it...you quoted it in reference to my response, to your complete freak-out over a methane plume. I already know very well what the geomagnetic flux is...you google it yourself if you don't understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 You did say it...you quoted it in reference to my last post to your complete freak-out over a methane plume. I already know very well what the geomagnetic flux is...you google it yourself if you don't understand it. The only thing I find are your rantings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 The only thing I find are your rantings. And the first link that pops up is a peer reviewed paper correlating ENSO to the Geomagnetic Flux, BTW. This is another example of off topic crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.